Skip to main content

Full text of "Illinois Appellate Court Unpublished Opinions: first series"

See other formats 


——— 


— — 


* 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
CARLI: Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois 


http://www.archive.org/details/illinoisappellat270illi 





w (7236 in 


NOVS 760... 


Taal 


BOUND... 


PETRI VALAUSKIS, 
Appellee, 


a 





vs. ; 


, 
T4% CRANE AND MORELAND REAL BS7TATE 
TMPROVER ENT CO., a Corporation, et wl., 
Defendants. 





On Appeal of 

STOCK YARDS THUGT & SAVINGS BARK, a 
Corporation, aw Succersor-Trustee, 
PEOPLE'S NATIONAL BANK AKD TRUST 
COMPANY OF GHICAGO, a Corporation, as 
Trustee under Document No. 9851177, 

¥. V. PEARSON, ase Reeeiver of Peaple's 
Bational Bank and frust Company of 
Chicago, and ¥. YW, PHARGOR, PRAMA J, 
O'SRIBN, BH. KR, BLUSTROR, J, C. VLASAK 
and HH. ©. LAYCOCK, as the Committee for 
the Protection of the Holders of Sonds 


Appellanta, 


INTERLOCUTORY APPLAL 
PROM CIRCUIT eourur 
OF COOK COUNTY, 


A 
970 1.4. 611 


@R, PRESIDING JUGTICH MeGUKALY 
DELIVERED THE OPLAIGH OF THY COUKT, 


Thie is on appeal from ac interi@eutory order anpointing 


a reeciver under a bill to foreclose a trust deed. Petri Valeuskia, 


hereafter called complainant, who filod the bill, is the holder of 
@ $1000 bend out of a total fasue of 216 bends aggregating 
$175,000; the appellants are the Stock Yards Trust © davinge Bank, 


a corporation, as suceessor-trustee of the trust deed, the eriginal 
trustee and ite receiver, ond the members ef the committee for the 
protection ef the bondholders secured by the trust deed, 


These appellants challenge the appointment of the receiver, 


saying that complainant under the terma of the trust deed had no 
right te file a bill to foreclose; that euch right is exelusively 


vested in the trustee or suceesser-trustee. Compiainant says that 


she has the right to proeeed independently because ef the failure 


of the trustee te funetion and the non-apeointment of a successor 


7) ° aw. ’6O . 


BOUNI 







.68C0L ,S8 AorsM ano 


eo eaas 
R — 
—— 
eo Llauga . 
ot¥ 


ihe Jaa CHA cRROM ema. 
te do ,aelswtoqre) s 2 
Ri aah ee bed 





ato goed 20 —— an —E ye at 
yaoqaod gewrl bon saws Le 





\rratese, on —* beet sant yd ben 
SS sees, fret FS 


Noa roses moire ut ouze Lean * ie | 
—— Tobit —— aa 4 Kweqia om ak ene il. 
,Siteueta® iv¢ed shook soutt & eeekaeret of LLid » xehaw wevienmt -~ 
—— ast oh Abd det both ostw tien be Leranoo Delian tet taoned 

| patie jozusat “ghaod D&E Yo ounet Latot * to duo baod OOOL6 # 

: — auen ¥08 dour? ehtal dows exit wus eaten Lionga ant 000,208 
ts bette esit - * tours ols te petanrs “eosaroous ae aaktaroqTos ⸗ 
* aot 048 tatoo out Lo axodaom ont ate stoviooet atk baw ‘eotaues 
later .boos| sents ole yW Romue9e arab Lodbaod —— 





9 





— wats To dmmeadegas Od spun Linde wtantionya vest? 
et hat boob taney ene Xe eoned edd 19h8y daedhelqne tot sat . 

se evhewtone at ity bs tease dust peneloexo® of tate wm weet ot yee 
4 add aqen dannte decod MOF QUTs Tos aeoD oe xo oncemtt ous at besesv 


3 i — E oui? “Le pavaoed Vinebasgebak heeooty ot tight eae end! ode 
| on | toenooun a ‘te tomtatoquesees odd baw moLsoau oF ooneuty ~ ww 








in trast, under whieh cireumstances, by the terms of the trust deed 
ghe had the right to file her bill. 

To get the entire picture it is necessary to note various 
proceedings in their order, Sovembor 9, 1932, complainant filed 
her bill; November 17th a demurrer to this bill was filed which, 
among other things, aeserted the exclusive right of action in the 
trustees; this decurrer, apparentiy, ia still pending; November 21st 
the Stock Yards Truaet & Savings Bank as euceessor-trustee filed 
its bill te foreclese; December Srd complainant made a motien fer 
the appointment of a receiver under her bill, which motion was eon- 
tinued to Decexber 6th; on December 6th the succeansor-trustee moved 
fer leave to file an intervening petition in answer to the motion 
of complainant for a reeciver and objecting thereto; the motien te 
file this petition, together with the motion for a»poiatment of a 
receiver, was eet down for hearing on December Oth; December 14th 
this hearing was continued to BDesember 26th; December 19th the 
successor-truntee served notice that it would om December 20th 
meve for the appointment of a receiver under its bill. ‘These 
varioue motions were finally heard on December 30, 1932, ond evulmi- 
nated in the entry of four orders: (1) The court ordered the eon- 
#olidation of the two bills mune pre tung as of December 19, 1932; 
(2) A receiver was appointed in pursuance of the motion made by 
Complainant Valauskis; (3) Leave was given to the successer-trustee 
te file its intervening petition in the preceading in whieh the 
Valeuskis bill was filed, nume pro tune as of Decenber 19, 1932; 
ané (4) on December Slat an order was entered nune pro tune as of 
Deceviber 19th, denying the prayer of the intervening petitioner 
whieh had objected te Yalauskies' motion for a receiver, 

The right to file a bill to fereclose is limited by article 


11 of the trust deed, as follows: 


& 


Biss iced 
hoek seurd ead Yo amass 2c9 yd. ,asoan taawotio —* — feet ot 
| fiby ved OEY 67 “tetas itt ost sate 
tot * ot ewasn af 32 atwtekg ertine ext — 
1 gamatalccioe ROL, were torte thd at agmtbows 
prey ‘east anv [iid 2289 of veexumeh a OL todaevelt — * xo 
ant ni mostoe ‘lo #Onix oviewions a? botuseene (went) sete grea 


ba tadgovod 4 A Wak bikes ad, * —— ——— 
cd Wey ‘ej he vest 








— oud ao xewnne ai — : * F pees 
ot ugtton add jadevons pulteatde hae — * ae — —— 
@ te dmatntogas wet aoitom of) At br congoges teats Looe als? @£2% 
AINE aaduooed je xodzooel me yattend Tet weeh fou naw) — —— 
“eid A806 andunoed j1208 eadneeel oF heunktaoy naw paltons hed 
| G08 tasdewest, we Riven 42 takd soften Sevaee sateaetarceseome — 
| _ aed pALLd wk whew aemienet & Ye Somemtatoqee omit to even 
— 84L , Ob sedupesd an biased gikanl? otew amokd on eughaey pr 
| aoe, ponent a0 d raxenng axe 7 npn ss ak vv : 












seine vue amide ee 
eloi tte ———— Of LEAS @ wah 08 ita — * ssa, ah 





"The exclusive right of action hereunder shall be vested in 
gaid Trustee until refusal on its part to act, and no boldbolder 
shall be entitled to enforee these presents in any proceeding in 
lew or in equity until after demand hae been made upon the Trustee 
accompanied by tender of indemity as aforesaid, and said Truntoe 
has refused to act in accordance with auch demand, Gaid Trustee 
shall not be bound to recognize any person as a bondhelder until 
his bonds have been deposited with sald Trustee, and until hie 
title therete has been satisfactorily established, * 


It hae been undfommy held by thie court that under such 
provisions no individual bondholider is entitled to file am bill te 
foreclose except under the specified cenditions. SKosengweie v, 
Roitman, 266 Ill. App. 124; 
263 421, App. 546; Pearlman 
251 Lil. App. 135. Complainant seems te concede this bat argues 






that as her bill alleges the incapacity to act as trustee of the 
People's Kational Bank and Trust Gowpany, the prier truetes, and as 
no succensor-trustee had been appointed, cotsplainant had the right 
to file the bliil. The bill also alleged that the appointment of a 
new trustee te foreclose the truet deed is unnecessary, but come 
Plainant sabmitse thet question to the chancelicr, 

The trust deed, wevering the appointment of a successor 
in trust, is as feliows: 

"The Trustee herein or its successora in trust may resign 
or diecharge iteelf or themselves of and from the trust hereby 
created by resignation in writing filed in the Recorder's Office 
of said County, and im case ef a vaenney in the office of Truatee 
er otherwice, a suceceser or successors may be appointed by the 
holder or holders of a majority of the bonds than eutstanding by 
an inetrument in writing duly signed and acknewlediged by them, which 
said inetrument shall be recorded in the office of the Keoorder of 
Geck county, [llineis; or in case said holder or holders do not 
agree in the appcintment ef a new Trustee within thirty (30) days 
after sueh vacaney shall cccur, then the holder or holders of sny 
of said bonds may apply te the Circuit Court of Ceok County for the 
appointment of a new Trustee er Trustecs,” 

When complainant moved for the appointment of a receiver 
under her bill, the Steck Yards Trust & Gavings Bank asked for 


leave te file an intervening petition in objection to complainant's 


motion for a receiver, This petition set forth that a receiver had 


ad hotecv ‘ed Llade sobawosed fe sok degan ayieutoxe Ta 
Sehiedhiod on bre ,fen of fe otk a9 “fy 
ai gatbosogiq yar ai aineantg sean? a a 55 * 
geteuct df aoqe thaa seed aed bone’ sad Pagosa Laps 
gefeutl biax ine ,biswerole as yf haehat 
erveest fied hone towa ahly — aL fom bell : 
figen SALodhsod & an AOMTS| aes based 
_ eet Lhe ‘Bye: eaten ea? Alan atx 






bod beogek smed wvegl choad afd 
boric des citsatestelsas — mae —⸗ ofele 
tos as dau daid Payee aks ‘ef ‘bao art ie 








‘galt To eetauxt ee doa 08 ‘vbloageeal at angelin 5 feds 3 


ea bas ——— toltg oat ,yanqweld fertT ben sawed pantie 
— 2* out hed duanisiques abad bad —8 70 a or 
# to dnoaddleggs eas told boysiiw ale site edt kad ose ort a 
wo⸗ dud eiasaen9sim a2 pooh deius’ oud pebkieeed” a conte wa 
oO " qatieonads elt at — — —— sats wit edi me iat 
, Tosnspowe 7 te —“ bemo vc· boot awe ost 
" | — — —— — ae 
‘mgiaoe Wes! tes dest? oa 23 +o sien bodait? ote 


ere a ie ne ny 
J 74 oh a. ae ; i 
a Bade Pubes f 
oe if ha dee atts 
wo Rh tee be 
F 4 shan - sha ede ae ae 
—* 4 Heer |S Ata —* * 
We 
f 











We a aake 55 odd a ie tats * age 


4 ber if 
a ge ‘pet bint a oe yee ee —— 355 —* ie 










bimtatne — gag A 

wit ey er on 
te tebrovel, eat te ouitie 
tna yer wrah Lo: es —— 
on eo sees ne 16 pach ene 
one set vave sont te a — iver 


tot beden seis agatvne * tout — sod® oi 
e Sansihe Lome pe neibowtee - b notte ; * * sa 


A 


been appointed for the People's National Bank and Trust Company, 
the trustee, prior to the filing ef the bill of complainant; that 
#aid receiver had resigned on behalf of said bank, as trustee, 
which reaignation was recorded in the Kegorder's Gffice of Cock 
County; that the holdere of the majority of the bends by an instru- 
ment in writing duly signed and seknowledged by them, and on Kovem- 
ber 7, 19352, recorded in the office of the Kecorder of Cock county, 
Tllineis, appointed the petitioner, Steck Yarde Trust 4 Savings 
Bank, a8 succestoretrustee to People's National Bank and Truet 
Company under the truest deed, which apyointment had been accepted 
by the petitioner, and, that by reason of the terme of the trust 
deed the petitioner became invested with a1] the powers, rights, 
estates and intereste of the original trustee; that the bill of com- 
plaint herein was not filed until Rovember %, 1932; that petitioner, 
as successor-truatee, is in possension of the real estate for which 
a receiver is sought and is collecting the rents, lasues and profite 
for the benefit of ali the bondholders, including the complainant; 
that the helder of ome of the wipaid bonds secured by the trust 
deed declared the whole of the principal seeured to be at once due 
and payable and requested petitioner to institute a suit fer the 
foreclosure of the trust deed for the benefit of the holders of all 
the umpaid bonde, agresing to indemnify petitioner from eourt costs 
ang expenees; that on Hovember 21, 1932, petitioner filed ite bill 


of compiaint for the foreciesure of the trust deed fer the use and 


benefit of all the bondholders, and that said eause is mtitied 








vrang® & Sere) ane R gi Setate lunre Has EEA, G Co. ep in the 





Cireuit Court of Cook County; exhibits were attached te the petition 
as follows: Resignation from the trust of the Receiver of People's 
Bational Bank and Trust Company; the appointment ef the Steck Yards 
Trust & Savings Bank as Successer-Trustee, and ite acceptance of 


J 
—J— Faa bas dash fenolie’ a? atenod emg 29% be thongs neog 
sade titan fase 3 Lie ous Te antalh eds of tong: yomtnues as 
|  ygetount ei pied Bhan Ye Masded ao ‘hong tno bad nev tae ‘bisa 
‘ood te eoirte rotrovon aad ad oo du ason ane naitangtner ste hetw 
~wcdenk ae ys abnod asd Re ertnohar one * aroh te t act rent — 
roa ao Soe edd yd be abe iveuive —* ‘bonnie it with 3ho wh heen 
vtinves ool ‘te xeisened an? te ealtis ext ah Nebtoees heE J ted 
aynivalt a deur see 80038 sTeasis hteg esd basatoqus —* omit 
tawst bus ina fanelsou a! siqoo of “sotauteroneseou aw ina 
betovase oo ews duoudnlouan ‘he hae book fawns ‘edt eehal va⸗ 2 
teed adi oe aars⸗ was te aone⸗aa wW — hie steaeksiten wae 
“ati cog edt fhe ‘sake begnevat: enaeod renettizeq a ost Beeb 
“a9 ‘te ang esl rast jeosaurd ianighxe edz ‘te ateotseat ae te Mo if 
sresotsiteq sodt — 1 * 0 dum vol iitay bart ton saw aisxod 
iia btw tot states keen ode ko aosenseaog ak a “nesuvetotosunsoue 
arttore han aesesd otaex ene galtoeifon at fae —2 —2 *. 
— Leos oui? anbbulont 818 Lodhand ong the te trem ont —X 
towns ana wd bexueoe ebaes —8 —2 oa we r eebiice walt Pate ; 
ud eone go od of hermes deqiontxg oft ‘to eLoite om beraLoob boob * 
Dis eae, ; 


. ont ‘fot sive @ edutiteat of wantoks Lomq borne upon “baw attra * a 
fin oo ersb io ae te $Moned ede: * bea suet ot % | 
















‘shu fo038 oat —— snow atoaac⸗ * 9 
eouadqsosa pet bas boseiatoxenss Scent &, 





this appointment; demand in writing that the Successor-lrustee 
institute foreclosure prececdings; the bili of complaint filed by 
the petitioner, together with the copy of the trust deed, which bi) 
contained the usual prayer for relief, including the appointment 
ef a receiver; petitioner asked for leave to have ite intervening 
petition stand as an answer te the motion ef complainant for a 
receiver and that a hearing may be had on eald motion and that the 
bane should be dented, 

Ae we have said, on Decesber 3), 195%, leave was given te 
the petitioner to file ite petition and it was ordered to stand as 
an anewer te the motion of complainant for the reeelver; the order 
ef December 31, 1952, uron hearing ef the motion for a receiver and 
the objeotions bused upen the intervening petition, reeites that 
“the cauge came om te be heard upon sald intervening petition, and 
said complainant adwitting the facte therein well pleaded but deny- 
ing the legsl sufficiens; thereef,” ond the court being fully ade 
vised and having on its own motion eitered an order eonaclidat ing 
the two motions, ordered taat “the complainant's ebjeetions te the 
legal sufficiency of said petition be sustained and the prayer of 
the petition denied" and complainant's metion for « reesiver was 
allewed. The record thus shows that complainant adeitted the ape 
peintment ef the Steck Yardia Trust & Savings Hank ae sugcessore 
trustes, and that this appointment had been duly recorded in the 
Recorder's office twe days prior to the filing of compiaisiant's 
bili. 

Complainant in her brief attacks the validity of thia ap- 
pointaqt, setting forth various slliegations in her bill with ree 
gerd to this. Although contrary to the averwents of complainant's 
bili, the fvets ere conceded of record end must guide us on this 
appeal. It is sald thal om appointment made after the exsiration 
of thirty days is void, ‘The trust deed cannet be so construed. 


outouTiotonapaows ase odd gaitinw af boosh 4 toast atoges | 

vd bores eats Lqweo te Lake one aapabbossotg ervesiooxe? pind deat 

u⸗ doddv ,bowh seunt oat Ye yaon pelt Addy stoped ,semoigtong oat : 
teomtakegas sais anttutont stoking twh teywig towew ot bested 

_ Bahneviogak #21 sved #2 evest tt hewne conndti fog praviopee ate 

se, 9 Se REF Aone Lemon, 9, Rokign oat oF THAME Ge am bowte hares * 

aus test ts Kel tam Bdsm Ao Sed of yam gataoet » ‘denial —J— 
wpe of 3 J 

























bn avleos: a xa woh tou ont * —“ asne * * ma 
tans aetiosx , nol i2oq natab vasa ad edt aogs boned — 
‘ben snoititeg Stinevtetah bhes seu Mued od of 20 Saad oawnn oe? 
a0 tus bebas ie ies atecasis ton ont yakds dake tase | 
: obs ehtoit anked auos ond haz *, looted ‘yamador vine ; 
| padtabs£oanve ‘tehte ma — astaea se wal. Be guty * 4 bs | 
asiz ot anolive tse et dante — — — ode" Sats borabss. ea J 
te ik a on? be heaielaus gd moidt tne tise * wwie n⸗ hain ie 
J ———— a tet aghtem 8! aos aua Lemos out “penaeh | 6 est 
cd ‘bods tba Anonieiquee tech wore euch Dmewer a: 
| steeaasowe ee duet egatvak ¢ feet —— — : ’ 
* ak bebsooer —2— aged has tot neue hs bs 
⸗s ata tency Yo gals wit oF xerng * — 





J 


The provision is, that in ease the holders of the bonds ae net 
agree upon the appointment of « new truetee “within thirty (30) 

days after ouch vaceney shall occur,” then the holder of any bond 
mey apply to the Ciroult court ef Cook gounty for the appointaant 
ef anew truetee, The “thirty days” referred te La net wo lindteae 
téon upon action of the bondheldera but te a Limitation upen the 
holder of a bond apolyimg to the Gireult eourt. thie cannot be done 
until alter the expiration of thirty days. The bondholders had 
appointed a suceeesoretruntes prior to fiiing of eauplainant's 

bill. Other teeheical eriticioms are made which are Without merit, 
The facets atated in the intervening petition and admitted by cow 
Plsinant show the proper appointment end accepianes of the successore 
trustee, 

Complainant seems te argue thet by the order eonsolidating 
her bili with that of the ouccesecr-trustes, Ker bill achieves 
standing on a pariwith the suceessor-trustee's bill ef complaint, 
eng, that eince both ask for the appointment af a reeeiver it was 
immaterial whether the appointment wae made wren her bili or the 
bill of the suecescor-trustes, We do not see how coneolidation of 
@ bili properly filed with a bili filed witnout right, can invest 
the latter with merit. Furthermore, the order appointing the ree 
ceiver is upon complainant's bill which complainant had ne right 
to file, 

#e cannet agree wits the statement in complainant's brief, 
that objections having been gustained to the intervening petition, 
the fuete stated therein are as if they 4id not exist so far as this 
interlecutery appeal is concerned. the objections suatainad want 
to the legal sufficiency of the petition, The facts admitted may be 
considered by tiis court im passing upon the prepriety of this ruling, 
The baeis of the ruling ef the chanceller sugtaining the objections 


does not appear in the reeord. In oral atgument it was atatea in 


‘ cy pis Ty i 
Rito) — 





ane’ of ‘doce a fav ge Py iat aalt ay ‘oui elow | * ee for T oy 


boa wiehiachand eat yah veraaa te ao star tone ae ne 
at danalatenos te aaa * rolta — 













save ton x84 wa — ey * 


—— 


3 _ sfalatones be tn — — — oat ae 


tens —5 tqaoe at 
_— yotadted mnatan vas dat ent of —— — mos j 
abies — on tates tan bap wet 1S ee ot 


\ * 4 
XS ho wv Be be — 


— pantecowe anattoctso: Bix ns 










wm — 53*8 naw * annua herve 


substance that the chancellor was of the opinion that any individual 
bondhelder «ould file a bill te foreclose and move for the appaint- 
ment of a receiver, regardless of the limitations expreneed in the 
truat deed. Aaverthelear, we adhere te our opinion, frequently one 
preases’, that where the trust deed gives the exolusive right to the 
trustee to institute forecigaure proceedings, no individual bend. 
holder wiay do ee. 

Complainant cites a number of cases of thie court vherein 
we have eaid that we will net always, in peeeing upon an interiocue- 
tery order of thie kind, examine ints the merite of the controversy 
for the purpone of arriving st o conclusion are te whieh side should 


prevail. In Haya HE, 263 111. App. 21°, we said that the 





esrentiai test om such an anpeal should be the probabilities af the 
@ase and wo consideration of the situation presented, and that the 
determination of the propriety of the imterloautery order may ocea- 
iohaliy invelve @ consideration of the bill. 4n the instant ease we 
have coneidered a1) the facts appearing in the recerd, including 
complainant's bili, for the purpose of determining wuether the ape 
polntment of a reesiver at the iuetange of on independent individual 
bondholder should be sustained. From thio «xeminatien and coneidera- 
tion we are ef the opinion that prier to the filing ef complainant's 
bili the Stock Yards Trust & Savinge Bank, « corporation, had been 
duly appointed and qualified ae suceessor-trustee, and had the 
@xelusive right te file a bill te foreclose, to permit individual 
bendhshdenghee tthe hie bill and move for the appointment of a ree 
eciver would make ¢onfusion worse confounded, It dees net oval to 
gay that no harm le done; that, sa the successor-trustee has alco 
asked for a reesiver, it is immaterial upom whose motien the appoint- 
ment is made. Aside from the question ef confusion, the request for 
the appointment of a receiver must reet upon some clear right in the 
mover, Thia right the complainant did mot have. 


—J 


———— fant agiabge ad? ‘te aev cotfenaesa edt, Jaah momate din 


J——— aad sat oven Ban avefegtet at sid # ei Daven tebe 
ods ak hoanerycs anohlad kal’ art te ame cham ywn thy eoee a Ye toe 
one vktusupe th ,wedatiqg tae 6% atedbe of .sapgeriiveved fieeh fowrt 
ei? o¢ Tints syivwions ane werlg beoh teamed os? wearin dade, sSoanong 
~bsiod faubivi bad OH ,Sptisooerg etuaaiog tet eduettenk ob —R 
at whe: ng aes 
atomeaste danes aug te seeas Yo aeduum & eedte. daonte Squod ! 
oneaine tint no aeqe goheeeg a2 ,aeewle gon Jilw aw sand Bhar. — | 
werueveriass otf to caicem oko otal sakenne hake, ahs. ‘Ye teh: ytot 
Ginosin able deditw of ae notenieage 2.a0 palview te soowmg ot ot 
_ oad fase bisa aw , 0a -qga £11 Bat 2ORiioD 9 Teas al os ne 
eSd Le weld ifidedoty of of Hivedte neqge we some me dmed dake ita 7 
ome Pane bom bedioaetg aoldentis od? to aolseseble yon - oe * 
~2a@) Yau tebzo ytotweosterad ode te yeedeqon: od * 2 wer ; 
















: ow PRED daatass std al, .ffi¢ edt te ooddaxeble —* ie i ts * Ls 


 Baldesens ,deeees siz ah gaixangum aiaet, odd, 1a oem tn900, * 
oye etd taigir yalotaieds) To. cngg neg. and veh Aaad at ae 8* 240 J 
isuhivinel dambavyehal om Re secndust ost to tendeaee «te donmdatog 
-stebleson ban aeksontonxe hid aoa .tealelaus ih ‘bawbde 9 teas * 
BT ay ha Legon ‘te aults? of) of teing Sadd wodeiee off | ‘Yo.wte ee nots 
areg tas moltoveries « , ae agate A dawnt ate kool vat — te 
wit hast baw ,wadusrrdtemnasome e2 bakt Liawp ban be al ew EE , 
fanart — of osekoewst oF Litt « £42 9f aMatx ovinwtoxe 
not 2 Fo Goowtahogge am? cet ovom daw Lhtd ads oR ad\guebtodbmed 
ht Bren ton aeod 2% abot anetaoa wee nolautaae orig. bas ov xe 
_ Sth pak aetearstonanagnons, OA -a9.ataat * al aie | 





















_ net tenes J — na pie * moe’ why 
Odd at fsigtt toads anos Aoge toey ‘beim ee a 
st Vaal faa Dah famed 








vie Siren Sd ve 


Wer the reasons indicated we hold that the appointment 
of w= receiver upen the motion of the ¢ovplalnant was tLuproperly 


entered, and the order is reversed, 
REVERED, 


Matchett and G'conner, JJ., coneur, 


2* 
— * cb * 
ed * 








36567 Be, 
oa 7 
PHILIP POPOVIGCH, — APPR AL FROM 
Appeliee, .” 
* OIRGUIT coum, 
ATLANTIC & PAOIVIC STAGES, INC., 
a Corporation, COOK GOUNTY. 
7H TA @e4 
WILLIAM J, POPPER, 2¢U l.A. ol 1 


Opinion filed March 322, 1933 
MR. PRESIDING JUSTION WILSON DELIVESED THE OFIBION OF TRE CoUuRT. 

This onuse comes on to be heard on a plea of release of 
errors and « deuurrer thereto. The appeal here grows out of an 
order entered in the Cirouit Court fining one Popper, an attorney, 
entitled to a lien on woney deposited with the Glerk of the Circuit 
Court. The claim aliowed was for 7110.00. The entire »mount of the 
judgment so deposited was $250.00. Popper cliaised » larger fee 
than that slliowed, and prayed an spyeal. after the appeal Popper 
applied to the Gireuit Court ef Cook Gounty and demanded the sum of 
8110.00, whieh he received. It is insisted that the acceptance of 
thie amount estopped Pepper from preceeding further with the appeal. 

We are of the opinion thet, having accepted the benefits 
to the full extent of the sum allowed by the court, the order and 
judgaent of the Circuit Gourt has been ratified and the sppellant 
here is estopped to proceed with the action. 

vhe fact that the order of the court granted leave to 
withdrew the sum of $110.00 witheut prejudice dees not chenge the 
legal effeet of the withdrawal. The préjudice, if sny, was to the 
defendant and not the petitioner. 

For the ressons etated in this opinion the demurrer to the 
ples of releasé of errors is overruied and the judgment affirmed, 

JUDGMENT ATYIRMED. 

HEBEL AMD HALL, JJ. coxcua. 





—— wo git Logas, ———— 
TrweATrs 7 
‘ies —X wont oxeroas & DUTMaata 
eVTEUOS Boog ones teteqitel a 
—E 


S=CL ,.8S doreM belit mointiqd 
-TAUOD SHY WO BOLMEGS ABT CAMUVIGMS BORLIN BOLVEVL GHIGIAERt eR 
te eecales te ceiq « oo Based ad of ae seneo eeuee eldT 
fe Yo tue awetg wren Leogqe oft soronsdd tetaumeh 9 hue stows 
.Yeatetie cs yreq~ot ane gaibelt gurod tivortO od? ak beretas “ebro 
tiwonsS ode to wx0l0 ade ddiw batieogeh Yenom ao m0Li # of bedtetae 
edt Yo tieoee arizas oft 00.0158 tot eo Somalia melo od? tayo 
eet tegued « beedede teqqoi .00,0883 se bos ineuab ae sroumg bart 
nego! Lasqaa adt rests -isecqs an deyany tas bewosis sade med 
to ave df bebaeneh bas ytmved soed Yo sod ¢ivonkd ott ot okigqn 
ko opantqeoos ode tad? hetedent et #1 .bovienex ed dotdw 100-0418 
-ieeqge edit dtiw xeddewt gaibeesou: mart soqqe% hequates tessome aude 
atitened sdt betqecns gaived .tadé noiniyo edt Yo ore OH 
bas «elie ett .seu00 edt WS Dowolis ane edd to dusexs Liyt odt 09 
danliagge od¢ bes bettidor avsd ead trmed tiverk® edt te anvegbort 
santana sé dn Donnas St Suan Man 
of evesi Sntaety tree otf To reine edt dest feat oh 
od? wyuadn ton tod eolbuterg tmodtie O64065) Te ave ost er * 
od? of wow .Xea Td yeodhutane edt slewarbdtte ent tw testte tegol 
edt of xoxtumed edt aglaign vidd ak batete enceaes odt cot 
* sheen & hy tasmtut old bao Bedirrearo ef oxores to seascer Yo atl 
sTERATCUA THAMOGUE 














38617 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, 





Ex rel Josephine Mehnke, Dependent ERnor TO 
@hild, 
Defendant in Urror, SLAROU 
Ve 





VICLA HO@IOKI, Intervening Petitioner, e saa — 
Plaintiff in Error. 210 LAL CAT 
OPINION FILED March 22, 1933 
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPIALGON OF THR OGURT. 
This aatter comes before us on a writ of errer to review 
an order of the Gireuit (Juvenile) Court of Gook County, denying 
the motion of Viele Nowicki teoyvwacete an order of that court sre- 
Viously entered finding Josephine Mahnke « dependent, taking her 
from the custody of her parents, and piacing her under proper 
guardianship. fhe petitioner Viols Nowieki is an aunt ef the ohild, 
Josephine ishnke. 
Ko writ of error was sued out te the original proceeding, 
This motion appears to be an attempt to reach the originel judgnent 
of the Juvenile Gourt coliatersliy. This ean not be done unless 
it appears that the court entering the eriginal judgment wes without 
jurisdiction. 193 Pao. 17; 23 Ariz. 586. 
fhe petitioner here seeks by her action to intervene in 





a @nuse already tried. It does not appear that the petitioner 
Nowieki wae = necesanry party to the proceeding. 

Upon the filing of the originel petition to have Josephine 
Mahnke declered «2 devendent, the People becase the real party in 
interest and the petitioner in the original proceeding ceased to 


— — 


>t Cp he A — 


— et. 





‘ pre’. AT OS 








— Dag ee a 4 ; Re: 


— tebe aatarovoca shit prom amy 
3 sora it Muted : 


eYTAUOR BOGS 





SSCL 88, doraM.0GI14 WOLK1G0 » os er 
oTRIES MET RD MOTAIMG WOT GANEVEURE HORETN WORROUL Guretamy 4 


whives of xovze ko tite © ae ay stoled cones érte attt 
gates yytnued s009 Yo erw0d (oLiaews) Ptuorroodds Bees 
 <wry ¢uveo dedt te tebue ae Stdagwred dvebeok aioty to woteen eat 
sed guties ,tuebaegeb  olndeY smtdgemot gatbalt * iw 
regen: vedas rad yalondg bas yeimondg tod Ro yRonard on moet 
blide eit be tora an ek Btedvod ahve —— ee 
eandbonnoty denigize elt od tuo Ove sow teaTe to someon seis 
tunmybut Lendgive sit Hosen of Pquntts ad ed of exabete molto BEET 
(paeinw eueb ed gon nao uid? .yikeweorelion fumed aLtnevnt add te 
tuedtiv eae dranyhot Lertgewo ont guizetim ton edt gadt areeque Hh 
2988 oatea £0 Q0L 009 2RE <ddvshaok oe at sno tboibetssit 
fi cuevacint of xoktom rod yd eaeen oad eMekttzer enh 6 os 
tencitive; oft add aewqga tom weoh oF ybetts xbsonts ees 
i Loseoety ot of hton “swnsoen s bee tietwon 
aidqemeh weed oF nike ee Aah hae: Sith: He GAREY Mae mORe © on taht bee a 
a ettag tee od? oneond eiquel edh taeaneqed ® Boveteet — 
ot beaase gotbeosorg Lantyixe — natin » 




















3 

exist as such. Ihe People v. Piccolo, 375 ill. 453. W writ of 
error is a new suit. The petition presented to us by the 

writ does not constitute a new suit, but is only at most an attempt 
to intervene in the original one. 

The question, as to whether or not the People being the 
real party the writ of error should have been to the Supreme. Court, 
is not raised. 

We see no reason for considering the cuestion and the 
motion of The Feeple to diamise the writ of errer on the record 
here will be and hereby ia allowed. 

WRIT OF ERROR DISMISSED. 


HEBEL AND HALL, J. Covcua, 


GAs * 
Nee Fith Ht 





STANDARD ENOCYOLOPHUIA CORPORATION, a 
corporation, 


(Plaintiff) appellant, 


gL FROM 





UNIOIPAL COURT 
Ve : 

OF CHICAGO, 
ALMA THOMPSON LEAVERTOR, 4 


(Sefendant) Appellee. 27 01 I.A. 61 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 


? 


., rant 


WR. PRESIOZTNG JUMTICKR WILOOK DELIVERED THe OPINLON OF THE GovRT. 

The plaintiff Gtanderd Eneyelopedie Vorporstion brought 
ite setion in the tynicipal Geurt agsinest the defendant Alma Thompson 
Leaverton to recover the purchase price of certein books sold by the 
plaintiff and parchased by the defendant. fhe defendont was served 
with the sumone and « copy of the etatement of claim but failed or 
refused to apoesr and defend. A judgment was entered for the plain- 
tiff by default on January 25, 1932. The judgment was in tort end 
malice was the gist of the action. A Gapina was served on the 26th 
day of Februery, 1933. On February 29, 1932, the defendant filed a 
petition in the nature of « bili in equity under seethon/of the 
Municipal Gourt Act, seeking te have the judgment vacated and the 
writ of Gopiag ad satisfacieundym quashed. Upon » hearing upon this 
petition the suit wis dismissed and the writ quashed and from that 
erder this sppesl is taken. 

There is nothing in the petition showing diligence on 
the part of the defendant, nor does it appear from the petition that 
the judgment wee entered through error by the court because of any 
mistake of iaw or feet. Plsintiffe statenent of claim charges that 
the defendant r«quested of the plaintiff that it seil to her certein 
books, falsely and fraudulently representing at the time, that she 
would pay for the same, and that the plaintiff, relying upon theee 
representations, sold the goode but thet, as a matter of fact, the 
defendant did not intend te pay but has wilifuliy, eantenly and 
maliciously concealed or disposed of them and refuses to pay the 
purchase price. 


bp * — 
—X ——— — 9— Gv AGBATE 
TRUCE SALT ——— es 9) ————— 


—— W 
is Al ors saninh (bandanne) 
—B8CL .@S dota belit aotatqd Lae 
C000 ME GO KOENISG BAT GSRRVIERG MOGUlW BORPOUS oauc iauu ad 
ttc astiemone) aLbeqeleyou! Seataedh Thidtniels eff — 
pen meOne wanLh — ott voninye Frum’ kata et at molten eth 
ods yi Slow stood aiatvee to sping seniotuy edt teveser of medteneed 
dernse sev tmehteteh edt .tuntagtoh edz yd beaadoxey bas theted 40 
ro belie? tud miclo to tuometere edt Yo yuo # haw enemmue silt kw 
~tinig of? 29? boredes aoe taoeghet A havteb bas tasqqe ot — * 
hoe Oped mi tow gararagheh ex? zast an pannnat ao ® eke 
ates ‘#it ae bevien eaw aniqes 4 ssoites off to tahy 4 ie cotton. 
4 held tapdanted ois «S8GL 08 yrewedsl a0 aah — 
iad —* robes yWinpe at iitd » te sauta ott af podtiteg 
| odd Sux Soteeey taemghut od? oved ef gatdnoe ath Pros Logke FS 
id? segs gaitaed » nogt vedas muhemebontettun be antase to tee 
tant mott Ane dedeauy t4n0 ad? dae beentnatd vew thus add soktiteg — 
wednt at Losgen ekdt ll 
MO SOMegLiLS yalwode soitidog Oat aL guidzoa WE OCONEE we 
tedt moltisen ott most tosqga ti adeb vom .eanbasted ot To ™ — 
te to sewssed tueo edt YW tome tyuords beretae aa taoamhag 
tad? ewgtado miele Yo taonatete etiisadedt stock 20 wat to edetede 
atetuen ted od Lies tf @udt Titatadg edt 20 betenweoe sanbaoted 
wie tettt yamlt od? ty gabtursenyes Ytwo Leben hae ghee 2 ‘ 
exed? xoge gakyier thivekelq edt fede dae oune ott 
oft fost Yo rotten « a0 badd sud choo ott biow 2 te 
hae Unotaen .elivtLiae aed tu yng of Raotet & 
add yu of vvecter Aaa wed? Yo Besogash to heLeso 

































It is clear from the record that the court hed juris- 
diction of the cause and of the subject-matter and through service 
ef proceeds together rith » copy of the statement of claim, siso 
acquired jurisdiction of the defendant. It is insisted, however, 
on behalf of the defendant that the atetement of claim fails to 
state a ceuse of action in fraud upon which a judgment could be 
based which would entitle the plaintiff to execution against the 
body of the defendant. fhe action was one of the fourth claes in 
the Municipsl Court, and the proceeding in such case is not 
necessarily determined by the plesdings but is such as the evidence 
makes it. The judgment, entered after the default, recites that 
the cuuse ceme on for hearing before the court without a jury and 
evidence being heard, the court found the issues in favor ef the 
plaintiff and against the defendent. 

It is urged that the statement of claim dees not atate 
such facts ae would entitie the plaintiff to recover a judgment 
for fraud and deceit against defendant in obtaining the goods through 
fraudulent representstions or faLse pretenses; that if the vender, 
the plaintiff below, intended te rely upon the misrepresentations 
ef the defendant, it should have reseinded the sale and sued in tert; 
thet the action heving been for the price and value of the goods, it 
was an action in aseumpsit and would not sustain « judguent in tort 
giving pleintiff the right te an execution against the bedy of 
the defendant. fhe People, ex rel. v. Healy, 128 Ill. 9; Brodsky v. 
Erenk, 342 111, 110. ‘he statement of claim did not charge fects 
showing any misrepresentations as to an existing fact which indueed 
the plaintiff to sell the goods in question and,so far ag the state- 
ment of claim is soncerned, in our opinion « judgment based on fraud 
Gould not be based upon such statement alone, and probably would not 
have been if called to the attention of the trisl court. The case 


Biel, 2 aR 
 wqheat bed dwoe oe Aa⸗ ——— ~ wor? conte 1 eA ra — ‘ 
asiveen tguroeld tre 19ttsa¢oatdun ody to bus wean ont te notte 

owls eehode te ¢etuetete edt to yao « atte xndtoyos abesera ke 
etevewed tetateat et 2 .daabaetod oft ‘to no ttesbabet, bortapon 
“ot elie? miale to taemetots odd tude dustavteh edt to ‘Masted ao 

od Bives sdoaghaih & doidy 84 weit on nt wedtes ‘te seun® § State 
edt fenkegs aodsuoexe of TYtdaiele ott sition bivew déise hood 
#2 sende dixyet $69 to one daw nokta edt <tnadavteb edd Yo ybod 

| toa ak bose dove ni gaitenovar oat bas tated Lentezaun at 
hive o8¢ va dowe af sud Ghakbotin Ody yi hekteeieeb yLtkesgeead 
‘dade gettody thisteh ed tere Seteeny shies bey or wae nese 
‘bate Yaut 2 duodtiy dxoee edd avcted pabased aot no Sie wesao edt 

| iedinadbetsnlens — — — 2— 
“atets ton enob tote Yo tasaanss sar * er eee 3 ae 
batmghat 4 coroner os THetale Mt attired Biuok ee atest sae 
puotdd shoes od? gatntatde at tasbacted tenkags — — aot tot J 
— ti dest —2— a 
, ———— od? soqu fh gee wrt ier eeek 

















sr08 al ——— 

a Se a on 
¥ Mabon (© 152 OSE sulasy .¥ Wien ab at Lat 
; sgradd ton bib mialo th taomwents 















stubs od¢ 4 wet of been Bettany ab & ik ri M 4J 

buatt ho toved énoxqiat 5 mokico wb at boa sone Ok ik 

tod bivew widadeiny fie stuale tasmdtats dove hoa 
nd ont Pro Sabre hand * 


—— — 
ny i J 


3 

of The People, ex rel v. li¢uly, gupta, wes a wandamms proceeding in 
whieh it was sought to have the court issue « mandamus to compel the 
sheriff to levy = second execution against the vedy of the defendant. 
The court held thet the writ should not issue: First, beonuse the 
declaration did not state facte sufficient te sustein a body exeeu- 
tion; and Second, that it appesred thet the defendant had already 
once been inesreernted under the same judgment. The ease of Hrodsky 
v. Frank, supra, was considered on » writ of error. 

The defeot in the statement of claim in the proceeding 
under consideration could have been reached by » writ of error or on 
an appeal, but it comes to us on the cuestion as te whether or not 
the trial court had the power after the expiration of the term to 
vacate the judguent upon the fects set forth in the petition filed 
under section 21 of the ltunicipal Court set. This petition is in the 
nature of » bili in equity and twe things aust appear in the petition: 
First, thet the debtor has 2 good and seriterious defense to the 
action; and Seeond, that the judgment wes in no manner the result of 
lack of diligence on the part of the defeniant. The petition sdwits 
thet the defendant had no defense to the section if it sounded in 
asmmpsit and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to recover » 
judgment even though it sh have been in tort. it appears from 
the petition, however, that the defendant instead of exercising 
Giligence, wholly failed and negleoted te protect her own interest 
by appearing and defending the cause. Equity will not protect the 
interests of those who wholly fail to protect such interests thea- 
ve Bliss, 214 lll. App. 463; 





selves. jmerican Suret of Re) 
ingi v. inlongo, 248 Ill. App. 90. 
From the record it apyears that the trisl court vacated 
the judguent und quashed the execution against the body of the 
defendant. In view of the ruie leid down by the courts in this atate, 





Ss 


& 
ai gaibeeseny sumabsew & aw otauie «Kise .v 49% x2 spiagot edt to 
ed Seumoe o¢ musabnan © suvel txyoo odd svad of Sfguon eeu tt doddw 
tashaoteb edt Yo yhod ode Teakegs aeltueszs baonow 2 Wel of roi 

add seuinged atexl? sownes toa biwede tine att tndd Died truoe oat 
~“08ke yhoo s alvtaun of tmatoltive etost ofate tom bab most <alee 
ybeorle- fed bd Poms thETIOGTA te tote baoos⸗ bow ‘ede 
xaghori te Suse of? strenghul ere ad? isla Detstoers0s. maed ooae 
etoTre ho thes » a9 besobianes Baw aman det -¥ 
gciieoonns odd at mdaie lo dnemodets odd ai tontab dt ia 
ao 49 yoxts to tite » W hesdoaox noo owed bivoo nottarobhe anoe 
ton 0 radgedy of 25 aolaeuo ad? me ev of eamoe th tid woe 
ot mired od? to wodterttoxe at the row oat bad divoe Ladue axle 
bGLIY aostiten edt ad dévot tos etoct odt moan tuomibut SAP seebe 
oi? a2 ai sobshdey aid .t0A ervob fo sods edt to £8 wolsooe ebay 
ohthteq edd at re0qqe few agen? owt Sas wtups ak itid * ‘te exuten 
ad¢ of snmeteb evotsotizes Ons boog » end ‘xordob ode todd toute 
‘ke tive: ods ToNies On HL Rew now taongout, ode — baoes — jnedves 
stinbs actysteg ed? .tasbne? ob od? Yo frag edd me aoa hith to wos 
ai bebnues tf UL aottos od? ot cnnotod on hed daahantad odd Pact 
_ @ tevener of beleitne eow Wiitakeda » ous — soe elern me· 
| Bert ereaqge t2 .ttet at nod oy. X 
* aeas a0a xs to Baotent saniaoten act snd Aerovo⸗ —*—*— ‘hes 
tarratal avo ted teeteng ot hageeigon sc boLint lode —— 
yoexa ton tite vxrva aaa one y guthcer ee bce Ronis age ee 


























08 * tt one. 28s uel 
ede * cn oad tenknas lets as Airey dp 


state side at etwoe edt wd axah hed oie out Yo woky at - 
ae ke ie bi od 








a 
& body @xeoution would not be sustuined on the feets set forth in 
the wtatenent of clais. tn the ether hand, the judgment was good 
for the amount of the finding ef the trial court ond the court 
wes without power to set that judgment aside as it had lost jurie- 
diction of the cause through the expiration of the term of court. 
For the réasons set forth in thie opinion, the order 
of the Sunioipal Court vaesting the judgment ia set aside and the 
onuse is remanded with directions te that ccurt to expunge ssid 
order from the record and the original judgment te stand. 


SUCSRERT REVERSED AND CAUSE AENANDED 
#ITH DIRECTIONS, 


HEBEL AWD HALL, JJ. COROUR, 













| fee foot ed¢ ao hemketuud od gon Dlsew 
A A ha NS EF —— 


ebro oa wsoinige eilt mt dtet tee tndsabe ode 
Ee ee ee 











page. what 





36093 , * 
ontoaoo TITLE AND THUST COMPANY, 2 /Y/ — 
corporation, iy APPEAL FROM 


(Plaintiff) Appellee, 





MOHIOLPAR OO 
Ve 
JOSEPH B. DRELL, rit CHICAGO. 
2; — 
(Defendant) Avpellant. 2 0 dc. 61 es 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 


WR. PRESIOING JUNTIGE WILSON SELIVENED THE OPINION OF THE GOvRT. 
Plaintiff reeevered 4 judgsent in the Municipal court of 

Chieage, for services rendered, from whieh judgment defendant apvealed, 
The services rendered were based upon an application for « guarantee 
poliey covering the title of real estate charged to have been owned 
by the defendant Joseph B. Dreli and wade upon his application and 
request. The application, however, is signed, M. A. Millis, spplicant, 
amd underneeth the signature of Millie appears the words, *on behalf 
of owner", evidently in the handwriting of Mille. The appliestion 
provides that the applicent shell vay = reasonable charge for services 
rendered in case the company sheli decline toe issue the policy. The 
defendant in hia affidavit of serits denies that he ordered the 
isauance of the applicstion. eference is made in the brief filed 
on behalf of the plaintiff te an affidevit signed by the defendant and 
evidently found in the flies of Mills, but we find no sueh affidavit 
in the record. By the files of Wilis it is evidently intended that 
the references were, in reality, to the files of the company kept 
under the same of Wille. ‘here is no evidence os te how this affi- 
Gavit came inte its possession. There ig nothing in the reeord te 
show that the files of the company were kept in the regular order 
of business and there is no pesitive teatimony that the policy of 
insurance sued upon was delivered to the defendant. 


‘Ge 


\ : sense 
: ae outa’, 3: i enbmadeanahenier Py 





i Sveti ee ae J Meee! 
——— uny 
— — ft 





cro kT Urs 


beet eS dots beLit nobntgo 


saa Llosch (smadaoted) 
al — ol 
rmiap xan HOLT WO ‘ane eanavEue aosary preg ma “se arr ile 
te P2u0d Legtotavk outs al pasary bart B berovooss ‘Uitsutast as 
o Lescks tashaoteb sanagout soe ste mort en otaer eenivics sot oga ¶ 
eotanrery a tet soltenilqes ae sons barat wren bosahnex ooesvaoe * 
doccue⸗ seed evad of begzren atetee Leet to alead oad? grazers: xotleg 
bas nolseosicas ald aoqe aban Aas Liane ti Aewnot daalucteb eit ys ‘ 
dass igs seilie .A ot ,bomgtc ad ,xevewod ,modbnaiiqnes ney sav —— 
 ‘theded no” .ubsow eft eteoqae aLi2h To onutemydn ole Aanana et een : 
aotisphiogs od? .aiiiv to gakttewbaed odd mi uisaahare «tome to 
enkeeee to% watade sidenouren « yor iledea taeollions oaf teodt wabiveng 
edt «.yeiloc odt ovnel of aaifooh ilede ymqeoo edt aaae ai borehaor 
ode bexebto od ted? eeiash otites to ¢ivebl¥te eid af daabasteh — 
heist Teied adé at obem at soweretet .aedtoutiqge edt to enaswend 








itn tashaoted dt yt Gongte tivabitie ae of Ttitatedg edt to Maded we 


fivsbitts dave on batt ow tud .eflis to eedet odé at buwet yLeaohtve 
Godt bobwotak Ydaehive ef $2 old to eaitt ett ye .heosen edt at 

dyed yeeqmen edt te selit odd of ,ettieet mk sero" necaereton ome 
~itte aid? wod ot oa songhive an ef exed? .a1Ltu to enna odd cotmg 
of broven olf of gaddvon vl oxodt wekeneseeg eth oft amee tive 
+taise talwgon edt at dyei oxee wiegest ad? to nest? edt teat wode oe 
Re yellog edd tad? yroutteet ovitiesg on ak oredt kun avoateud to 
~tashasteb oi of bereriia® aan soqu bom onanirent 





At the end of plaintiff's cage the court direoted the 
jury te bring in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. 

Agency cen not be proven by the agent but his acts may 
be ratified by the principal. If, ae « matter of fact, a policy of 
imaurance isaued and wes avcepted by the principel, it would be « 
sufficient ratificetion. If the defendant in this enuse, after the 
filing of the application with the plaintiff company, signed and 
filed an affidavit in furtherance of the procurement of the palicy 
At would be evidence of 2 retifiestion sufficient to sustain a 
judgment. hile such an affidavit ie referred to in the testimony, 
we find no such instrument in the record, 

In view of the unsatisfactory condition of the record 
as we find it, we are ef the opinion that the Yunicipal Gourt 
erred in directing « verdict end the judgment is, therefore, reversed 
and the cause remanded for « new trirl. 


SUAGWERT REVERSED ABD CAUSE 
REBASDED. 


BEBEL ABD HALL, dede GONCUA. 



















os botoenah seed oct base a'thttelele to hep ede th, >) yee 6 sie 
i sMebemtala ot Yo ows at — 








te J 


5 J Sas 
ah J J NY 


— — — ————— 
4 Wf ives t: .ler laa tax oft ws dbotacoda wow tan Hones § | 


— ge hehe Ne ve 


odd aoete .pounn opt af tashaeted gid TI swoktsortites tmetetttos — 
owe ae — Widetelg one — J— 
{ 945 Yo snenenwoorg ont Yo veuntedre tieahatta 


es Pap es; — — — 4 


& akadaye of anokotttus odie it itet sto | 
fan) pb J2 bps a 












= 









— — 















Me cyoatseed © ont mi of berxoter ok a as town 
—V * bi — 
—— ode te aoté.theos wnerortostacns eds odd 


* ee i dana 


“ure b Seetokautt ode ana notnige oad ve 
Boe 


—* aie eR ee i 


* 
J 
ie ee VLR, 












36111 
MAY RINELLA, 


— 
— — 
* 






PPEAL FROM | 
Appellant, 


SUFRAION COURT, 
Ve ¥ 


ELSIE HALVORSEN, COOK COUNTY. 
Sue D2 0.LA Gas 
Opinion filed March 29, 1935 
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WLLBOX OULIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

Plaintiff brought her action to recover damages for persenel 
injuries sustained by ressen of « scoilisicn between » car in which 
she was riding as a passenger and another car driven by the defendant. 
The accident happened between &:30 and 9:00 o'eloek in the evening 
ef Neveaber 25, 1923, at the intersection of “estern avenue end 
Worse avenue, two intersecting streeta in the City of Chieageo. The 
Cause was submitted te a jury and a verdict returned finding the 
defendant not guilty and judgment wes entered upon the verdict. Te 
reverse that judgment this appeal is brought to thie court. 

The facts disclose thet the plaintiff was riding in the back 
eeat of a Cadillac touring ear which woe being driven by one MoGowan, 
a& young gan about 21 years of age. The automobile was proceeding in 
a northerly direction on Yestern avenue and, sevording to the 
testimony of one Michael Arrigo who «as riding in the front sent 
with the driver, they were proceeding »t avout 85 miles an hour 
and that the headlights were burning; thet as the ear reached Morse 
avenue, defendant's car came from the south and turned suddenly in 
front of the car driven by MNoGowen end, in order to avoid = celiision, 
he, MeGowan, swung bis ear to the right or in an easterly dirsetion, 
but too late to avoid the accident. 


The defendant Eleie Halvorsen, testified thet she was driving 
south on Western avenue and thet her husband «ss sitting in the front 
seat with her at the time of the secident; that vhen she reached the 
center of Morse avenue she sterted to turn te the left ond st this 





| —RX gk Ea 
iy gia iieggs - 
Xxguod po rnaven Rx * 
ow 
STHHUOD 1000 naanoraau ataus 
“S19 AT. OFS —— 


e6@L .C& dors boLlit ao faigd 7 7 e, 
1900. gat @ #OI4i%0 ax auasvedaa #0811" HOLYOUL waraieans ie 
Lonwsrsq rot seyanah tevoosx of moLton wed Fyword Yhisatnsi — | 
dole al 120 2 aeexted aoltatiion o Yo aoaner ww hendadove wotnutat 
pembetet oe add w movie 120 toddoms Ras Toaes0ag 2 es gethiT maw one 
quinave odd ms deole'o 00:@ bus 08:8 Hm awd ot baneqaed toshioas oat 
bac eunges axretea® te woitoonrssaz ads te —XR 28 codeorol to 
od? sageotdd Yo yItl adt mi adeotts gaisoserodak owt ysuneve MeTOH 
ed? gakbalt denwwtox toLbeew a bmw CHL @ 08 beteindime eam oauae 
‘lot .tedbuev ene moqu beeséue aay ‘taemghet bas wht tou 4 





: ore 


stzu0p eid? ot Hgueré at Laocsn abst tmemetar, dade emxeren 

doed edt af yulbix waw Thetatelg edt todd woodenth atowt edt 
~ftawefew oan ys movith naled aew deity tO gaéuwet Oalithbed 2 to teve 
L gathessong saw sLidomotse ed? .oga to eteey £8 tuode new gauoy la 
edt? of grtdveces ,bas sunevs motes? ao aadsoethh yivedetan a 
deve teott off ad gadbix ecw odw ogixta iendoti sao to yontteet 

tuo me 2altm @& trode ta galboeoone exer yud? yxovled ede atte 

aered bedosex te odd ee ted? yguiatd exer etdyiibosd ede tode bas 
ak yinebie doatet ban dives edt moe? aeen sH0 ettankeeled .emeera 
noletiies « bieve o? rebte ak ban mewouel YS nevieh tad edt to daoxt 
sHalteorlh YLvetess an Gk to tight ott Sh mae Oh —“⸗ 
aiivie® enw on todd Delt Lieot snostevieit stele taebastod oat * — * 
wort sd? at gatttie cow hondewd tod ted baw — — #0 * iil } 
ods bedoax ola mode tad? jtmobsoon edt Ye Onlt oft 40 weil dite tome 


ae 


pitt te Bae tel edt of axwt of beor⸗e ———— — 2* one * 








3 

time the oar in which the plaintiff wae riding was about 100 feet 
south. She testified thet in her opinion she had plenty of time 

to Grose in front of the approaching oar; that she wae going sbout 
10 miles an hour and in second speed. Her husbend testified to 
practically the sane facta except that he stated that as they headed 
east he noticed the ear driven by Selewan approaching at a very fast 
speed and thet hia wife atepped on the gue in order to speed up 

the oar and to get by before the ocnooming oar reached them 

We are asked to reverse the judguent on the ground that 
the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

The question as te whether or not the defendant turned her 
ear suddenly inte the path of the oncoming machine in which plaintiff 
wae riding, or shether the car driven by MeGowan in which plaintiff 
was riding was proceeding at too dangerous «a rate of speed, were 
questions ef fset for the jury. The evidence was conflicting and a 
reviewing court will not, under such circumstances, substitute its 
opinion for that of the jury. Gurney v. Sheedy, 795 iii. 78. 

A photograph of defendant's oxar was introduced in evidence 
over objection of the plaintiff. Allen Halvorsen whe was riding 
in the ear with hie wife at the time of the agcident testified that 
he saw the car in a garage on eatern avenue sbout 9 week after the 
accident and that the pieture correctly represented its appearance 
at the time. it was not error to admit this photograph in evidence. 
The witness stated it was « correct representation of the cer as 
of thet time. The case of Byen v. City of Ghiesgo, 181 iil. App. 643, 
eited by counsel for plaintiff, is not in point. In thet ense the 
pkoture, or vhotograph, was taken two or three years after the 
accident and the probzbility of changes in conditions were such es 
to juatify the court in refusing te admit it in evidence. The 





question as te whether or not « phetograrh is a correct representa- 
tion of a condition is one resting iargely in the discretion of the 


et 
fest OO©8L tuockhasw yakbix gaw Thitelalg¢ edt doidw oi van and onde 
eat te ytasiq bed eda moiniqen ted af tot Oettitaey eff .déues 
fuods gatog eow ode ted? x00 yasdoserays ed? to taotd ws weer o¢ 
ot beltitesd baedeud tot .beeqe Snoote af bar soot an welin OF 
pabeod yatt an tals Hefvita od add sqeGx0 avont. ouam Odd YLLeoigontg 
tect yrov s t& mabib aera Govteem ied goevinh reo ods besitos ed dene 
pa Began of tele af arg ot ao beqyete @hiw aid Gadd bue heege 
wand? Oadoset tao gatwoune ot? exoted yt reg ot tai nan ont 
 dadd bevory ott ao tneeghet oft saxever of bedan ers ef 66004 
 amaaehive edd to tigtew vestines edt tantaga ef #0 sige 
edi Deecunb: tanteatheats: eat oe om: tial alte wana ellie iB , 
tiintelg deidw at oxides yotmoows ode to dian edt etad Yineboae nee 
erov .deeqs te efet 2 msotayash OoF ta Qatbeesen: aan ytbir ow 
# bas. pebestitces aew venetive edt sytut ed 0B 20x88 Yo snossoeum 
mn etuéi¢etioe .eesortesporio dowe tebay , ton Lite Savot yuiwadver 
087 .£61 288 ghosts iy pene surest ete Yo tea cot motetqo 
| SRehive at beawhostar saw toe Bl oxebaeted te deemgaiemy 2” 
“yatbir van ede necrovied melia sti ienbete edd Ne Ronemetde seve 
Sot bertétaod trmbisoe oft to eutt edt te shaw whl Htdy usw OMe mb 
ads tette dow « fusde exnova aroteet mo eyatag: — ab t20 edt enw oe 
— ott Retaratrqen Useortes OrUEORy Os% todd haw dmebsonee 
-OMOhYe a2 icetgateda edd stubs of toree dom ase WE \euke ott Ga 
as too odd to moldetaseenqex goerted « aev $2 bOdeTS aRGNedW OMT 
O89 s@gh o Lit 184 .9ucRAM 2p NALD ov maM Te wano oat” — — 
edt geno fedt al .taloq' mi te ak yTRharnte wt Leenaoo du 
od? tTedte sresy sexdt 19 ow? moxar —— * 
et, dows — ano ktinass ah potas ’ 
edt somenare. 4 tints ot ) 














edi Yo aoaveroeth ont ak yioguat gabteon on | ed 


3 
trial court, and we find there was no xbuse of auoh discretion in the 
Casé at bar. 

Qvjection is made te giving ef instruction number 2, on behalf 
ef the defendant, on the ground that it directed « verdict in favor 
of the defendant. ‘ie do not so construe the instruction. A similar 
instruction was approved in the ease of Sees, v. Chieago City Ry. Go, 
286 ill. App. 569. It is sought to differentiate the fegsl case from 
the ease at bar on the ground that the defendent in thet ovse was 
& street car Company operating « street car and thet it was impossible 
for the motorman to de other than operste his cer in «a etraight line. 
The same objection was made to the instruction in that case as here, 
in that it limited the moterman's exercise of care te the time ¢con- 
eumed in approaching the place of the accident and ignored the 
question as to whether he was guilty of negligence st the time of 


the collision. 
A number of inetructions were given in the case at bar and 


the subject of due care at the time of the secident was fully cevered, 
The objection to the 6th instruction given Gn the part ef the 
defendant is without merit. This instruetion not only required the 
defendant to exercise due care in the driving of her car as it 
approached the place of the accident, but «liso requiréd the defendant 
te do all thet she could te svoid the secident in question as sceon as 
it was ascertainable to her thet the car in which plaintiff was 
riding was getting nesr the path of the oar which defendant was 
@riving. All thet wes required of the defendant was that she should 


do all she could te avoid the aecident in the exereise of ordinary 


care 
3 From an @xamination of the record of this case we are of the 


the opinion that the queation was one preperly submitted to the jury 
for its considerstion. There is no reversible error in the reeord, 
and for the reasons atated in this opinion the judguent of the 


Superior Court is affirmed, 
JUNGUERT AFFISHED. 


HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. GONCHR. 


8 
it mi aeivevcetd down to seedy of eee etod? halt ow kan phedod Lalte 
vied te wand 

ated ae A tadues sottowtiand te gulvty oF shvm of sokieetdg © m4 
wovst si dotbvev @ BeteeriD te fale tawny ode 4 paneer SB Ode Yo 
taiinte A .aotsourdent edt swt?eace on tom ob of ‘stnabasteb edt Ro 
LYEES GnesgeD sv Genes Yo Sead OFF at duvwnydn GHW HoRéouToat 
on inane snes oan 6008 Aaus Bae 
ene gaa9 godt m2 tnatanteb odd sot Rawory 948 ae tad fa sudo Olt 
dineoumt asw oh toil? how vee soorde 2 wttvereqe ‘Yuamsd XH foette « 
oali tigherte « mi tao eid oteveqe made code ob of aaanevon od? g0t 
erent os Gene ted? af aolfowrsant sy of Shem uae aottes(te ames edt 
ange emit edd of suse te sutetene etaaersodom oot bevintt of dele at 
ace bexemg! bax gasbioea ad¢ Ye eoele edt yiniitoswggs iE bane 
le sett odd tx comegtigen te yWilug ee ———— 
hos eed fe —— oi tusrttes — iawn’ 
boreved Yiwt ean guahioes eds to amté ost #2 auao au Ye trotdee ad? 
nid te freq ed? 0 gavty aniterstesd 698 edt af sedtoaide od? * 
ed? besivoe: ylao tea codtnarrteat eldt .tixom tuedthe ab duabasked 
_ th ne x00 xed To gatvind oft, of ona ob oedonens of taahaoted — 

tushaetsh edz bestupes eela tud gtaebsecs edt Yo oeedg el? hadnnozage 
af goon Se aolteeup af tnahioes ast btove et Rime ede gods Lhe ehee 

ae Tihtabsig deidw at x99 edt tad? s0do% pideutetzeons pay #2 
(tap taphasteb doide teo edt Ye diag edt ten gadsten ow patbes 
bivods oda ted? exw taadastod oft Ro Rephupot enw todd Sha. “agadvinb 
Pesaitye to eciprexp sit a duahioes i, Diowe. of Rime — 
odt to axe ow sano cide te hapoet silt Yo soktantanne am moet, 

Vint elt o¢ Sedtindve yLxaqorg amo saw Moddponp add todd molaigo 
ebroast eat ak Torte — oid kexeven oo ak — —— 32 






























36120 \ ff 
MILDRED A. DAVIES, J APPEAL FROM 
Appellee, \} : | = 
V GUPERION Count, | 
Ve { 
MARKS BROS, THEATRES, LHC., a GOUK COUNTY. 
sorporstion, és y 
Fea | a: *) 4 
Appellant. 2 OIL. A. 612 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 





WA. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED TiS OPINION OF THE Covet, 

The evidence shows that plaintiff, while seliking upon a 
sidewalk in the City of Shiengo adjacent te the theatre building 
owned and operated by the defendant, was struek by « heavy sign which 
fell from the buiiding and injured her. 

The declaration consisted of twe counta. 

The first count charged thet the defendant was opersting a 
theatre building in the City of Chienge which contsined entrances te 
the premises and which was located on one of the public streets of 
that city; that upon the front outeide well of eaid building was a 
sign advertising the sttraetiens ehown within; that the defendant 
osrelessly and negligently onused or permitted and allowed s9i4 sign 
te become detached and loosened from the outside well of the theatre, 
and as a result thereof, the sign fell upon the plaintiff end she 
was injured. 

The second count cherges the defendant with osrelessly and 
nepligentiy attaching er ceusing the sign to be attached te the 
outside wall of the buliding as «= reaguit ef which it feli and 
injured the plaintiff. 

The facts in evidenee bring the acticn clearly within the 
rule of res os, loquitur, 20 R. 0. lL. 192; Kiewert v. Balaban @ Kats 
Serpe, 251 ill. App. 343; Simmons v. So: 

Till. App. 367; Burdette v. 








166 Ill. App. 186, 


4 


* * 
~ wont chamia Y" 


J 





anos Lowa ES AR RR. 
| stavoe soraetag ania 


ise ricer 


Tres Roe 


I 
is J J 10 8 
| «BERL eS doze belt? ais | cake (all 
HGS MAY VO HOLWLGH GMT GEMAVLITR RORLIN TORTONY BALGLE: 
a Mona gaition eLide .Witatele ted? awoda ponobh 






















| patbitod exteod? odt of sannatha ogantd® to yee) oat 
te means teed « yo Aouxte sow qtrnteet eb add. 2 
—— eke —— pai ad 
g piksoreqa now tnobasted ext fade beyrado tmuoe M : 
at geomertae Seale ten as t au egunsdd Be yaso edt Mh gnebad — 
te eteotte eliduy ed¢ te emo ac bodneal ben date ⏑ ⏑— 
"gene Bites Dien Ye Lor sbbutue tape? edt mage ante ders ; 


Yaabastod ode tedt jatdtie weds eagttesttia edt yates 
ayia biap herplia Baa detitereg x6 peauon yltasgeigan dae y | 
—— et to Linw abtetwo edt mowt benssoat *—— 


ast saga of BOL . sand 
: J 


The charge in the de@laration was generol in ite terms and 
the proof offered was of such a character as to raise » presumption 
of negligence. 

Defendant made a motion far » new trial at the close of alj 
the evidence and » métion in arrest of judgment, but no motion was 
made at the end of piaintiff's ease to direet « vereany on the ground 
of variance. We are of the opinion that the declerstion wes 
sufficiently broud in its charges of general negligence to support 
the declaration. if the attention of the trial court hed been 
@alled to the fact that the declarstion charged apecific negligence, 
it sould have ensily been corrected upon the trinl. Gaseoigne v. 

Soo, 239 Ill. 18; Sigmons v. Sommenwes 
Edigen So,, 203 i111. App. 367; Burdette v. The Ghioawo Aud, Agar 
166 Ill. App. 186; Shieeagoe Cit io. Ve Cxrroll, 206 Ili. 218. 

The inetruction tendered on behalf of the defendant and whieb 
was refused by the court, was on inatruction toe the effect that *the 
mere fnot, if you find it to be a faot, that the sign struek the 
plaintiff, is not sufficient te entitle the jury to find the 
defendant guilty. Before the jury oan find the defendant guilty it 
must sppear from the preponderance of the evidence * * * that the 
defendant was guilty of some negligent act charged in the plaintiff's 
declarstion * * *." In view of the feet that the secident iteelf 
Teised 2 presumption of negligence, it was not necessary that the 
Plaintiff prove specific negligence. The happening of the accident 
iteelf wes sufficient te raise a presumption of general negligence 
and the refusal of this instruction was not error. 

During the examination of the plaintiff, in answer te « 
question propounded, she volunteered the information thet the maneger 
of the defendant company had etated that the sign had fallen on 
some previous cecasion. On aotion of counsel for defendant this 











ot 

hoe weet afi al detemsy sew sodéatoloeh edt of egteds eff. 
soktqmesey © Padet oF on uatsernds « dove to een bovetto toon adit 
vooaay ined te 

fie te epole edt te ieix? wen 6 tet apitos s sian taghmopel . oid 
aan sokgon ga tad ,iaeaghet Xo toners a watton » bas sonobtve ede 
newer ott ss Sodtrey 2 sennsh of oag0 o!Ytitcindg Yo hab ot ts ebam 
irs aeiterelesh ade euite ne kaise edt t exe wt .tonadtev to. 

— Progwea oF oOnEy Lyon Loxeang ‘te soyrade whe ah ——— VWeasiosttoe 
eed bed trwoo Lnitt edt to aottnette edt " snoataxadeon * 
sound Span altiovgs degtedo nosteraiosh ode todd tot ede 4 bit me 
-¥ sontoane® faint edt aaqu betesrzep aaac ¢ vtaso eva Yh 5 
Lepaomag® — Bia Qf Lit GEE , A0e mad ale 








ont deuete sage a odd tady — % * ot J —* wey Rh, 


aes i 


_, odd badd of vast ont eletone of ‘taatosttue tom wt * tend os 

a — dashaerteb oaa hast aoe yout ode emotes esha * 
5 * eel 4 OH Ge ; 

odt gate * * * ooaebive — sum 


& 07 seneea at preteens, edt * moruon tans J — — 


J 





3 
testimony wos stricken out sad theresfter » motion we made by 
counsel for defendent to withdraw « juror and te have the esuse 
continued. This motion was denied. ¢ see no error in this, 
however, as the error, if any, wes cured by the sotion of the trish 
Gourt in striking out the evidence. Soreover, it is not error to 
introluee evidence of prior sgcidents ooourring under the same or 
similer circumstances as it has a tendency te prove knowledge on 
the part of the defendant. 
The Supreme Court of thie state in the onse ef Boore v. 
B, &. & 5. By Ry Go., 296 iil. 63, in ite epinion eaid: 
"The rule in relation to the competency of téetimony 
of other accidents is, that where euch testinony tends 
te show the common cause of the accidents to be a dangerous, 
unsafe thing or condition the evidence aa to such secidents 
is competent, net for the purpose of showing independent 
aote of negligence but for the limited purpose of showing 


that the unsafe — oF condition causing the particular 
accident wag the condition or cause common to such indepen- 


dent secidents, and that the frequeney of auch secidents 
tends to show Know such Gondition. (Gity of chicsge 


Ve 226 Ill. 6 A; sobil VEO os FORO. * De Ve 
314 id. 124; £3 of Taylorville v. Stafford, 196 





Petty v. Stebbing, 164 Ill. App. 433. 
it is insisted that the judgment for §3,500000 ia exerssive; 


that the answere of the physicien Tenney te the hypothetical 
question, and from his own x-ray pictures clearly show that they 
were based wpon the hypothesis that there wae o fracture of plain=- 
tiff's foot. Plaintiff testified that prior te March 6, 1939, 
the day of the sccident, she had never had any trouble with the 
foot; that when she was st the Edgewater Hospital on the day of the 
accident her foot was examined and an xeray picture taken. She 
was never treated by any physician after the secident until sometime 
in June, 1950, in Michigen by a physician who did not testify in 
this cause snd who recommended light treatments. 

Tenney, on behalf of plaintiff, testified that he examined 


8 

@ shew eow aattow # sotteetad? hte tuo avdeiate eee Yromi@aee 
eaued ed? oved of har touwt # wethddie of tashaeteh tok Lenasod 
,eid? at corre an eo2 Bf .heiash ew cotton eidt .bowntiags 

hebst otf Yo woltns ot yo Semwo’ sew yan tt stereo off af ,revened 
7 sente tom at tf ,tevocval! ,csaebsve adt tyo yrttirée a2 deo 
to dane aie sehaw patyryooo, staspions totee to seashive eombggeit 
— —— 
sfaabnsted edt te hued nha 





— gtooe te Seed O4% of Steda eidt Yo seve — A — 
thiow sodwago etd ak gO oil GOP — — 4— 
iteos te youetoqmee edt of wettadet a2 oles aay 








$f yaoultes? fowe erade —* 481 ataehiosa x 
ash 8 6 of ehuehioos odd to sale momweo Gdé 
pet ort fr Bm Maggs bP ore oe ye 5* 
ro sae — Botinii edt Bey ae 
a a paleueh anshinied $0. 
-roqetat foun of Mommem vauet to sokt 
_Btiebieoe dove Ie youevpert z abhor ob. 
ginoldd tay; 2 -se1sthaee dove te 'enaey 
’ a rd crash ov 


oY 3° Bo | 
eel aie —— sz ——— ie PT, 43 . au ne : an 
* bk J ies — bey Pee gee | ; ? aed ane 


. .qqh «AIT O82 . 08 sit weil dagodds +6 dinia seein lh aba 
888 sygk .LiE POL epmitetors bron 
—— ck OOSNAE,Z? «ot saanghot edt fed? bodateil ws ot 
 inestedioqy! edt ot yaume? meteteydy edt to seve th tot 
xog⸗ tu? were Ulxaele cormtoig yot=t two wit work bas grokteaup 
~alnid to enatoert s aw oxodd ged? atendioqyl sdé noqu bee i axe 
s8S@L 4 dors of mite sodt BoLTAtede Tistatast” “sheet a! the 
mat dttw oliver? ws Sad tover Bad ode ytuabinde edd to yah ade 
oly Yo eh o8t a0 Entice tateaegel edt te ow ode mode Feds j20ek 
ants Asasat oeytole Worse a ty tsa tow food net denbtone 

ak b eittest ten Bie ome rotates * we weg 
‘peatnexe of said bedriseat ——— * Lindos ao —— — 


































4 
her in Merch 1981, two years after the accident, and that he took 
xerey pletures of plaintiff’s foot which showed « fracture line in 
the third metatarsal at the proximal end, This bone is the largest 
bone in the foot. He was asked a hypéthetiesal question which ineluded 
as s facet the following: “Assume further thet she newer hed treuble 
with her foot before, @to." The anawer of the witness te the hypothe- 
tical question wae aa follows: “My opinion ie that thie atate of 
facta was the oause of the condition I fownd in the xersys." It 
will appear from the following that the physicien's testimony was 
baged on the assumption thut there was no previous injury and thet 
the xray showed a fracture of the foot, which fracture wae included 
in his answer ae a basis upon which he predicated his opinion thet 
the injury was permanent. The defendant introduced in evidence an 
x-ray picture taken at the hespital on the day of the secident and 
whieh we believe is authentic, This pieture showed an eld freetuare 
ef the foot. fenney was reeslied for further exeminetion and exemined 
this picture end stated that he wag satisfied that it was s pidture 
of the same foot of which he had taken w-ray pictures, and if the 
films were taken on the date of the acvident, then the necessary 
conclusion to drew from the picture was the fact that it waa an old 
fracture and was not 5 result of the injury in question. The testi- 
mony of this witness appeare to have been based upon the faet that 
the fracture wes the reault of the injury whieh is the basis of this 
auit and the testimony ie of such a character thet we ere of the 
epinion that the jury was influenced by this fact in arriving at its 
verdict. 

fe are of the opinien that the accident happened and that 
she received an injury to her foot, but, from the record ae we find 
it, there is such doubt on the question es to whether or not the 
fracture resulted from the injury, that it necessitetes » new trial, 


ry 
food od godt hie ,Oaobtooa ott xedts axed, owt | Ade dovew wt! x08 
ai eal stuteett « beweile doids soot eth staaity seuvtoly yore 
feoquel edd al acod est tue Shakxoeg Odd tw Keerhitate, belay woe 
ehylont doit moitecup Leektededgyd & boxes now oH  Vdeok de HE bioe 
eidwort bed raven ode Fadt redtet — iqatwolied sah seek oe 
ottoret ould ws sagntiw ad? Yo — ad? * nde _ote ed toot rod Wty 
to eteta side ted? et actalge yi" tewolth? ea cow adlveeey Sekt 

A Sseyenne od? at havo I acktibeoe eat Yo sauso on? gow ofa 
eee Yrtowitest ctacteteyde oct tail) wiiwoLltot od? wort taerqe fide 
tect has yawtat euotverq om eae ovedt ‘ted Eodauean — 

bebuieut saw etutosyi doidy .toot od? to erutonst 2 héwolla yer 
ted? aniatco aid betesthery ed delite mous set's * — 
as wpaebive ai Beoabatial isbaatoh Oct «tat ow usr 
bas tuchloon edt Xo yeh ed} ao Entiqgued sit * anaes vn “a be 
ruta⸗rt bo an Sewode etutets eid? .oktmeddus at well 
ondmere Beis wodtontmnes coders tot beilnber “new enna “atoot ute te 
orate a une -ti tide hetteltes eit Wk Hulk Dibaté tak worblde aide 
odd 2h bur yeonwtoty yore wodat Rad ad dotiy 26 ddot vnee ‘Oe to 
Yronsewen oft aedd ,gaabiode act te oteS edt of waxed even enki 
hfe as wow th dade font add sow orutele 64¢ méet werd’ of modauLoace 
witect edt .nolteoup af yutad odd Yo tivest & toe eaw hie oautentt 
tadd dant ott magi beard weed ovai of BTemcge ber *—— 
wilt te etead od? at dotdw yates ode to Hiner oF naw ‘eae 
ett te are ew ¢adt seteatsdo « oie Yo ok vonteeon ott aii bibe 

ot je gaiviera ai teat and we heewsn 






























ade ise henenqad tuabienn act id ihn Oia a iat 
i batt ow oa broven ot mort — inet * hey tho —— 








If, as a matter of fact, the x-ray picture teken at the 
Edgewater Hospital disclosed an old fracture, as testified to by 
plaintiff's witness Tenney, then her statement that she never had 
any trouble with the foot befere, wis erroneous and tended to 
prejudice the jury. 

For the reasons atated in this opinion the judgment of the 
Superior Court is reversed and the couse remanded for « new trial. 

SUNGHERT BEVERSES AND CAUSE HEMANDED. 


HEBEL AND MALL, JJ. Coucue, 


a eis ab Remeos Y Babe ican — Sea ian meet ect 










* * e's ‘ 
J— ak Bk } 4 
* ial aol i —9 
2 * J a 4 ; F 
i Ey a ewe . — ig 
i iim § 
* AP oe Ae 4 
— dai i 
ee — 4 
if BS “yee, a, 
* Bis Faas UE a — eae 


‘ \ Hh * Le r ene ; 
Pe 52 A aia ny ae Le bal iy 2 ‘ = pid 
weet Baie: ‘ak ‘re ‘bes al ea | — wats 


3 she Said — baie oe Ta 





144 
oF — PERE ge te 
4 
: : i J 

un ott mutt —twad 
; 

xiiy ee gets 

it 


PPL PAS. MR WS ae ete 


‘ea ee 


ay Sh ‘ fi 
Saat. Ter SG RCA 


—— 3 
Rags > Ry 





eh ECT WOR 


MILDRED A. DAVIES, APPEAL FROM 
Appellee, 
" GUPERIOR QOURT, 
Ve \ 
HARKS BROS. THEATRES, LHG.,y COOK eye 
2 Cofporstion, | 2 py OT 
Appellant. ? é * A O 61 git 


Opinion filed Feb. 8, 1933 


WR. PRESIDING susttor WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
The evidence shows that plaintiff, while walking upon 
a sidewalk in the City of Ghieage adjacent to the theatre building 
owned and operated by the defendant, wae struck by a heavy sign 
whieh fell from the bulldinis and injured her. 
The deolaration consisted of two counts. 
The first count charged that the defendant wee operating 
a thestre building in the City of Chisago which contained entrances 
to the premises and which wae loested on one of the publie streets 
of that city; that upen the front outside wall of ssid building 
was ® sign advertising the attractions showm within; that the 
defendant carelessly nnd negligently ceused or permitted and allowed 
seid gign te become detached and loosened from the outside wall of 
the thentre, and as a result thereof, the sign fell upon the plein- 
tiff and she was injured, 
The second count charges the defendant with careleasly 
and negligently attaching or gauging the sign te be attached to 
the outside wall of the building as a result of which it fell and 
injured the plaintiff. 
The fhets in evidence bring the action clearly within | 
the rule of ree ipsa lequitus, 20 & o L. 191; Kiewert v. Balaban | 
& Kate Corp., 251 Ill. App. 342; Simmons v. Gommonwesith Edison Oc f 


Mons daaeta 4 | MAAS os areas 
ap — a⸗ xeaaa ne 
aos AOINESUe I eA 
hs J——— * — Reh ie ty 


osYTUIOS woo 


"SLO. — O8Gys 


Seer 28 .¢9% helt foimig “ate i Gi 





ages SRT © HOIRIYO SHY Gxnavisa0 iosaty wouter’ oaloremn’ Po 
none grkiiow oltdw _iit¢akals sasit ewots; sanobive OME FPA ndin® 
geibiiud extsadt add of @naesthe agsoida to Yio edt at Abew@el | 
nate qraed « yf dowtte exw tashaotob oe qi botetoge bas beawe ‘ 
sted bowwtsi bor gitblied edt mock ifst sotda 

eatayoo og? to bate Leave welsernLoah ait 

gaitexeqe gow tachasteb eng toold bogtedo twos éozat ade iy 
2eonet saa beatetnee dotde ogsotdd te so ont al waibi tus — a 
etoorts obidug od? to eno aw hateoes ane sett bas ena tnasy edt or : 
|“ gathiind biee to Lfew ebtedwo saoxt ont ous ded? pete tedt to 
| edt ted$ jaidtie awode onoltocr? te edd patettrorte rye ® gar 
rewoiLa bare hoteiors, to heauss yltnagtigen bue yloeslerso sacbasteh 
Yo Lisw shistue edt moxt bemeagot bas bedostah suooed oF mate bkew 
~alale adt aoqu Lhet agde acd gosted? tlener 2 ee San ,orvdeods ott ’ 
aerola⸗ Bow — baa mae 
Uneeierss At iw snabaet sh sit oogredo taren bnovse oat . ee ie 
ot hedostia ed ef myte ost patnase mo yetiont?s eStemgtiyan bas 
ban ile #2 dodde Yo tlvoet = ee yatbkied edt Yo Law ebietwe ede 
+ eae ode — 26 
akddiw qix0nto asitos ody gaicd somsbive a2 sre oan bis 

aadelos -v geowely j10L vl 0 oH OF — otue oe ae 








8 
203 Ill. App. 367; Burdette v. 
APDe 186. 


166 Ill. 





The charge in the declaration was general in ite terms 
and the proof offered wae of such « character as to raise a 
presumption of negiigence. 

Defendant made a motion for a new trial at the close of 
ali the evidence and a motion in arrest of judgment, but no motion 
was made st the end of plaintiff's cease to direet « verdict on the 
ground of variance. ie are of the opinion thet the declaration 
wae sufficientiy bresd in its charges of general negligence to 
support the declaration. If the attention of the trial cecurt had 
been called to the fnet thet the declaration charged srecific 
negligence, it could have exsily been cofreeted upon the trial, 
Gascoigne v. wetropolitan £) 239 Ill. 18; 
th Edison ¢ 203 Ill. App. 367; Burdette v. 
hud. Aggn. 166 Til. App. 186; 
Ve Garroll, 206 Ili. 316. 

The instruction tendered on behalf of the defendant and 
whieh wes refused by the court, was an instruction te the effect 
that “the sere facet, if you find it to be a fact, thet the sign 
atruck the plisintiff, is not sufficient to entitle the jury to find 
the defendant guilty. S¢fore the jury ean find the defendant guilty 
it must appesr from the creponderance of the evidence * * * that the 
Sefendeant was guilty of some negligent act charged in the pisintiff's 
declaration “ * *." In view of the fnet thet the eecident itself 
raised « presumption of negligence, it wns not necessary that the 
plaintiff prove specific negligence, The happening of the accident 
iteelf was sufficient to raise a presumption of general negligence 
and the refusel of this instruction was not error. 











Are (9x 7 pntennt {8S GA, ti — 
sexed att xi Leteneg ean aglsars Loon ese a2 —* ad | e 
Van of ne sovanssds » dove 10 se banstte 2oors of? tun 

, | spose linet to meakaeamirae es, 

te enaie edz ts ieint wer © tat foitom 2 ebem tachaet et Aisi lain, 
motion on tad .tnompiut to 2 fanrxa tl ao tom e bas seashtee at Lin 
‘ed¢ m0 toibrey s townth ot beso Sbigaisle to ‘tito! ott 6 atin ape 
noitatatosb ods del? modkiqo edt Yo ork ow” “eonadeey te i OG 
ot soavaliyen Lorsaeg te aeprede eft ck baged law — 
hed dre Lalet edt to nelsnetee ot TX  wokgoted 









o toaqe begusds moltosaloab att tade goat ont oF ———— 


——— add sous batoer'toe need —* ‘Bite “ 
“qh 101 088 ..00 veudiag Bs : 
' .v agin J awh HEE kan gon 2h 


ae 











hats ‘fesbeoteb edt Yo tinted ag borohast to poet ent net te wibs — 


zonis odd of martoweted an’ aim delibo’ dite Qe heuniton” | 


gta ott ‘tat afost s od eee bast wey te pest exam ede tat 
“batt ot ywt att oletine of sneielitwe doit et PR idabode onda 






WL dnshavted eit Balt ao yeu, adit ovo “ebLtog a bast: si — 


odd tan? | o* * snnebive od? Yo shacrebieubie’ « | 
Bankes ed? ni bepustlo toa tesp tigen ‘eli * ar 





Vocts sxobioon edt fod Bont vay Yo weaw at — * * ——— 







_ (Sit gaat xxaaoeoac tom eon 02 <onnny 6 * re no 
tasbtoos ont * astnecgad ott ‘oii , 
—“ Lan tire to rontimuor | 





ae 13 Ve Oy 
wis 


During the examination of the plaintiff, in answer to a 
question propounded,she volunteered the information that the manager 
of the defendant company had stated thet the sign had fallen on 
some previous occasion. On motion of counsel for defendant this 
testimony was stricken out and thereafter » motion was made by 
counsel for defendant to withdraw » juror and to have the csuse 
continued. This motion wes denied. We see no error in this, 
however, as the error, if amy, was cured by the aetion of the trial 
court in striking out the evidence. MWoreover, it ig not error te 
introduce evidence of prior sccidents occurring under the seme or 
similar circumstances ss it has a tendency to prove knowledge on 
the part of the defendant. 

The Supreme CJourt of this stete in the case of Yoore v. 


B. DB. & 5. KR. Be Gow, 395 Ili. 63, in its opinion, said: 


"the rule in relation te the competency of testinaeny 
of ether accidents is, thet where such testimony tends te 
show the common cause of the accidents to be a dangerous, 
unsafe thing or condition the evidence as to such agvidents 
is competent, not for the ourpose of showing independent 
acts of negli enoe but for the limited purpose of shoving 
that the unsafe thing or condition enusing the pertioular 
asecident was the condition or cause common to such independent 
aceidents, and that the frequency of such aecidents tends 
to * knowledge of auch —— (Sity of Chicago v. 





160 Til. App. 7} 





To the same effect see Healy v. Chicess 
Petty v. Stebbing, 164 Ili. App, 439. 

Objection is made to the giving of a certain hypotheticai 
question to one of the physicians, on the ground that it inveded the 
provinee of the jury. fhe objection to « hypothetical question 
should be stated with sufficient definiteness to permit its correction 
by the party asking it. Seiffe v. Jeiffe, 267 Ill. App. 33, 

ghere was no conflict in the evidence as to the menner 
in which plaintiff was injured and, consequently, the question did 
not invade the provime of the jury. it merely called for an 


a of yeowens af ,t2itaiedg ad? to aoitenimexe ody ‘sat 
regent Ott tedt molfaerotat edt betTectariov ite 8 : 
mo apiist bad mate edt godt botete dad yroqnen tantaeted ‘edt to 
“gids taabaeted sot Lownwoo te doltow sO sna Lenooe sunspot — 
qi abie wow sotvom « teftcwsed? baa tue sadobed 
@esde off eva ot boa sore, « werbeldiv of ‘ | 
yende aa ad an ove a sbelash sow soltem ait — 
feir? edt to notton ott qe Betun Baw 1 V — bend aa sp oni mod 

















gd Snve Odd toby gutzaweno sdaabionn toleg to som 











no ———— — oF — * “sil +i es as0n aaaua ns * 9 
.v etgoi to bene off al otste eidd to teudo snesqut * 
OO Yebew o bet ab 28. TEE Bee ris J 


* to ——— ‘gtd et pee aY 8h vf dh 
/ Mo a +. beater 


— * 333 ———— ——— 
pen dove of pa eomebive est, ge. J — “er 
- teretmeshal urtved 


e t on 
gaiveds te seq 













ew hetinil ed? wot tod: % 
telenl oteg odd golases —— 


tt atta oy nt 


* —— 
Pee LET eal 


Saostodtogyd atatreo 2 to gatvig oft al aban bt nobbected 

eit Bobeend $2 todd bawory rere viii: RG eit 48 a —7— * 

|“ mehoneep Leoatedtoqyd * we wokroatde ad? : tot oa te — “f 

woltewrnos of) ttaeg of aeonagdesTéh gubsertiue the bos * tod 
a8 wqqa «Lt YOR agrees —— th ‘puddles * — ee le 

‘xenon ed? of tf eomebive ot at totttaoe oa con Sxedt eer ate. 

Bib akin owe odd — E vine wt yetih he 9 


— law ak” sled Ga aie dee oe jon 















4 

expression of opinion as to whether or not the condition could 

have resulted from the injury. ‘te do not believe there was rever- 
sible error in the question propounded to the witness and the snswer 
responsive thereto. 

The sign which caused the injury was a heavy one, it 
strhkok plaintiff on the foot and knocked her down. Plaintiff was 
taken to the hospital and an x-ray taken of her foot. From the 
hespital plaintiff wes taken to her home; she testified her foot 
was badly swollen, the skin wae broken and bleeding and she suffered 
severe pain; that she applied hot applications and used a lamp 
and was in bed about three weeks; that whenever she would weaik upon 
it the swelling would sppear and her foot was black and blue for 
two or three months: that the aecident happened Merch 6, 1929, and 
thie condition exiated anhtinuously; that she went to her home in 
northern Michigan and had light treatments and the bone in one of 
the toes backed into the instep and when walking she frequently 
had to step and sit down. 

A physician testified thet the injury w2s permanent 
and that an z-ray ploture of the foot showed « fracture line in 
the third aetataraai at the proximal end. 

| It is insisted that the judgment of $5,500 ia excessive, 
indicating prejudice and passion on the part of the jury. The 

trial court and the jury hed an oppertunity ef seeing the witnesses 
and hesring the testimony of the attending and other physicians, and 
we are unable to sey that the damagea are so excessive as to indicate 
prejudice on the part of the jury, particularly ac the verdict #»« 
was concurred in by the triel court in entering judgment on the 
verdict. injuries very similar te these compleined of in this osse 
were held sufficient to sustain = judgment for $4,000 in the case of 


S. & A. RB. FR 2 80-6 Ve Ralker, 118 Till. ADB. 297. 


We gee no reason for disturbing the judgment of the 
Superior dourt and it is, therefore, sffirmed. 


JUDGMENT APPIRMED, 
HEBEL AMD HALL, JJ. CONGUR. 


nto, agitibaoo ed¢ tos so sodtosde on es ahs fs 3 . 
“cover sew exed? eveiled fon oh a «gewjad edd pon besivenx — 
seveae odt Say peentiy add of behawecote coltaeup ed? al torneo eidke 
bie saodonaNT ariawogeer 

ah apne wend 4 & Oow. — one — dnite aats ect —* 
mow Metakeds .sweb wed Seciesad bee toot ode nv. Vidéntase segete 
odd moe fob? zed to modet yot~¥ mo bes dadhqned ad? oF mediad 
toot rod beltitest ode jomod ted ot aodet nw SERRE Papen | 
berertvs she dae gariteeld bee wedgsd sew mide edt ,ooliowe 4ibad ap 

smal ¢ bons bas enoktentings tod Betigge ode tadt — 












at nak errtoant & hentia: oot ot * opie tho ual = te 
ie Lomkxong ce tn Lean: * * * 
erteroors 04 002429 to ad edt tedt Poredent ot #t 
od? .yeut att to sing od? ao aoiveng baa solbyie “9 peaks 
_ ponecatin edt gateoe te ytiautreugs sa. had yxut ont, ban ‘true Late? 


yn ataaloseyda tedio baa yathaotta edt te qomstesd ont antzeod Bas 
eteolbal of se Ortegoors on ots omg amb avis feds * of —2—— 

att fotbrey ede ae qicedvotices ett ect te tag | 
wis sa onry Lert — — ———— 













* “ETA, 1 — 


oat be tasung hart od? yuidautesd sok abe⸗va * * a 
ebaatstia re ot Bite ' 
ce Teme | T 


—— 6 


36217 + 


WATIGHAL TEA COMPANY, a Corperation, APPEAL FROM ( Pa 


Plaintiff-Appellee, 
OLROUIT COURT, 
Ve 
BLGIN, JOLIZT AND BASTTRA RATLWAY GOOK COUNTY. 
COMPANY, = Gorporntion, a 


T E 
De fendant-Appellant. ¢ 0 1 A. 6 1 2 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 
WA. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE GPIRION OF THE COURT, 

Plaintiff recovered = judgment in the Gireuit Court of 
Gock County in the sum of $750.90 for dameges sustained in a collis- 
fon between plaintiff's truck and a freight train of the defendant. 
The accident cecurred about 9 o'clock in the morning of January, 7,1929, 
at the interseotion of Lincoln Highway and the defendant company's 
tracks. 

At the point where the secident occurred three railroad 
tracks intersect Lincoln Highway. The first was a track of the 
Michigan Central sbout 430 feet north of the defendant's tracks. The 
second and third tracks were those of the defendant. fhe distance 
between these latter two tracks was aporoximately “9 feet. 

The driver of plaintiff's truck testified thst as he approached 
these trecks from the north hé was going about 7 or & miles an hour. 
He did not come to a full stop, sithough there was a sign *Stop*on 
the highway just north of the track; that ae he approsched the firat 
track he saw 2 train standing with the engine close th the highway end 
that he was thereby prevented from seeing the apprenéh of the train 
whieh struck the truck. 

This train which struck the truck consisted of an engine, 
Caboose and five ears and was woving in » westerly direction on the 
defendant's second or southerly track. As has been said this second 
traek was approximately 29 feet —— the first track of which the 


HORT deen 


* *LUSAIG- 


Hiei on 
Hokies 


iy 
“SI9 ALT O¥ bap Lhoguartanbasted 


CECE ig GS dota OLitmotataO, fore poo ote ay Weed wate 
+PAUOD SMT LO NOLWLGO SRY GRHAVEAEC MOGATW SRRTEUE, — om 
te tien gisetd0 oft at taemgbut « hevereoet maeaaaug 
waiiion s gh hasiataue aegomed 2a% CO.08T9 To mum ss at a tnt | 
stuchasied oft to ators digtent « has seust oVMataieh; axouted mek 
QSL, aftaumst Yo gulnren edt wt Yolete € suads Sereuoee exBhiond OtF 
vaozaas tunhamted edt Ono omega aleaaad to mod * ik 


oki ererred s ee at uraitau 
wweLsonaamttions alt * 
— —* — J 

“yawazar 34 ma, Tatas wxosa 





a \ | Rae 
—*8 











“odd Yo toent 9 nom taint oer — sins 
dT sexoout at techacied adt to dtcom toot Of tredadd 00 oe 
sonstath ott .tachreteb sf to eeodt otae esomen Sah a bese 2 von 

sto0t G6 Uotaminoncge sow molnant owt cegitel exedt neorbed | 

rdosatays Od ac todd Deltidaos Nownt eo ttltntely te seeded —A baie . 
swod ae alin 8 to Y twods giteg mew od dito one mow, axon mpadt 
 merqoth” agin » aoe etedt deunithe santa Lis of uame toe ‘bth ou 

toxtt oa hedosengs od as gad? loan Le awigid edt 

das Yauiigid of? d& Seedo ontyme ond dt ha yudhawte akort 9 wee ent soatt | 
plone edt to ——— hehe wont ——— wonoa⸗ wow ad tact 
























- bopey_ att pon hy pte tod 
edt doldw he donut tern? oat æerea toot 


i ——— ey a * 
2 — wT om a8 me a i — 6 


2 

other train of the defendant was standing. It was 2 cold dey, the 
temperature being about 10 degrees below zero but it was clear and + 
there was nothing but the standing engine to prevent the truck driver's 
view of the oncoming train. 

The driver of the truek stated that he did not believe the 
two trains should be headed in the same direction. On the other hand 
there is testimony to the effect thet these were not through tracks, 
but switch tracks in the yard of the defendant compeny and that trains 
operated in either direction upon said tracks. The driver was in 
the habit of crossing the tracks at this veint about twice or three 
times a week. 

A Gase very similar to the inatant case is that of Sowers v. 
Ailinoie Sent.RA. Go., 261 Iii. Anp. 63. In the ease ot bar there 
would heve been nothing to prevent the driver of the truck from 
se@ing the oncoming train after he had crossed the first treck and 
passed the standing engine. There would still be approximately 20 
feet before the truck would reach the treek over which the train was 
proceeding. Under a somewhat sigiler situation in the case of Sowers 
ve Iilinois Central 2. Re. Co,, already cited, the court held the 
driver cf the truck was guilty of contributory negligence. While it 
is true that the question ef contributory megligence is one of fact 
for the jury, nevertheless, where the facts are close special care 
should be used in the sdmission or ex@lusion of evidence. fhe cause 
was tried by the court without a jury and while it is 2 fact that the 
court is presumed under such circumstances to consider such testimony 
ag is mterial, nevertheless, there apvesrs from the record to be 
considerable testimony as to the demages sustained whieh is not based 
on facts sufficiently substantial in character to support the amount 
of the finding which waa entered in the cause. 

Coleman, 2 witness, testified as to the value ef the truck 


4g 

edt a teh blow s ane ot syed bad aay dnatwereb off? w abot ‘nedto 

- huts nent sox #2 tud oxen woled sxergeb Of tuade gaigd otur xrogao⸗ 

‘gorich deus ed? guevetq of onigae guihaste oat dud ——— Bee erent 

7 shes? gudncone edt te woty 

ade avelisd tant bb on a⸗ — ode em — eae ys 

baad J odt 2 _ ge dteex se. anne © od? at bebesd o¢ Aine anton on 
yetoent aus ⁊a⸗ po wrve eaodd tadt sOoite ole bade ¥ tomb baat 
enters tedt Ros yasqwon gaghaeted ont, 3e Seay oat f * * ; ” 

| at ec tovink of? .edeent diss foes. mottos — 






















oe ee A. * — ig AM 
: a y same te tact at FEHR — *2 oar ot ‘satiate yer, —— 


—— nod te bese ed? al .68 opel oh AE sat 
mgt Raunt ot Yo sovish edt taevens of gabiton 1 
‘poss inst sentt eds boneero had oi tothe — ai imaesie 
| 0s Uistsntorags ad fitts bises ered? .melgae yathade O47 fegnag 
ass alent ed? dotde zevo dentt edt donot — ara toc ta 
| exgned to eso ods ak ao ttoute telinie trstwenon a ——— 
ot? biod txw09 ode abate —A— 


| enue oft seousbive to , notonsécs * seme — 

out test fost 5 at th obtdw baw yueg « twos te rong, 

yromatesd dou xoblanco ot aeons tanuonke dose seheus bow 
og bet droves adt moxt exoeqys et a . 


aawoms * —— ‘ot —“ 


(AOR 


‘dowtt sit Yo onlay silt of na ‘beltatest iin ant: 


— Sec 


3 

from facts presented to him in a hypothetical question. He had no 
knowledge of the particular truek and did not know what it would cost 
to make the repairs and rehabilitate it after the accident and did 
not make a mecheanionl inspection of the motor, Over objection on 
eress €xamination counsel was precluded from going into detail as to 
what the various items would cost. The witness had no knowledge ns 
to how far the truek had been run ond did not know where the truck 
was afterwerds solé or for how much. His testimony wes of sueh char 
acter as to rest entirely upon surmise and conjecture, 

Pelikan, a witness for the elaintiff, was permitted to give 
his opinion as te the volue of the bedy of the truek prior toe the 
accident, based on a hypothetiosl question. It appears that this truck 
had been purchased by the plaintiff company from the Consumers Groceries 
as & aeoond hand truek., fhe witness Pelikan hed no knowledge as te 
how long it had been used by the Consumers Gémpany prier te its sale 
to the plnintifs, 

Plaintiff's case was based upon damages to the trueke There 
was no evidence in the record as to the reasonable cost of repairing it. 

Witness Kellar testified, "if 1 remember, §350.00 was paid 
for the truck" by hia company after the eecident. He wes sleo per- 
mitted to give his opinion se to its valve before the secident 
although he testified that he had never seon it prior thereto. 

In view of the uncertainty ss to the damage te the esr as 
shown by the testimony of the witnesses and beeause the case is very 
Close on the frets, we are of the opinion that the action should 
be retried and, therefore, the judguent of the Cireuit Court is 
reversed and the cause is remanded for « new tril. 

JUDGHENT REVERSED ABD CAUSE REMANDED, 


HBBEL AND HALL, JJ. GOHGUR, 


* 


Nd 

on bed of .nodtenuy Lent Posttoo yd a ah ait ot betreote ‘ates? vert 
teon binew ti take woo tom bib Bax dovet ‘eabuosdeey ‘edt te ogbs 

Bik bus tuehisor edt cotte #h etutiitdades bua etnger weit exan oF 

Se apdtestde Tov 4notom att Yo ao Ltoognat Leoisadow: « ofan tom 

ot es Lhateb otnt gatoy mort bebuloony ave Loven aottantasxe seers 

ae ogbolnges ow bast wnowtiw ed? .te00 bivew amet avodtue od? sade 

howd edt erode wort fon b&b has sure mesd bod sound adt swt wod of 

tate dowa to eae yaouliend elk .dewm wod tet vo ‘ioe abrer: 

seurtoataco bas cekmaue now Yerktas — 

avig of hetttoreq ena .%isakelg ede tot saentiy « ym 3 

dt oF xo tag sound ods to ybod ot Yo suley ont ot ¢ ot 2 

owt? aid? tad? rasqqe #1 .woideunp | —J— 

tre vorn atomunsoD edd most vere — ete — 7* 


























else ———— 


ered? siege? add os sogemnh poqs Deeod eit tik ie es catad —9* 
zal egon to teoo oldanoesor ‘etd of ba brooes odd a’ ‘ie —* cl re 
bkoq ace 00.088% eredsonet i +r8 shoktioner tatiet cenctiw cht. * 





“req cals cow oh — —J ent eC out rey ; 


taabhoon ad onoked wrlev obt of oe . 
sotoredt toltq th meen coven Bed ait todd Dottidee? of dye 

aa x89 ods of egomb odé of ex Wahotwobmy 949 Yo wolv al 
yor ei seeo oft enuroed ous enensnd tw ‘edly to caonttess sae ‘th . 6 
biwode aotten off tadt aciatae os? to * ow sates * * saoLe 
et 
sistxt wea 2 tot bebaewex at eure oat dae Deerowe: 


Aanan AKER adua awe —J — J———— 


















qo oad — — 


36611 


PROVIDENCE INSTITUTION FOR/SAVINGS, 
a Gorporation, 


Complainant-Appellee, 





RLOGUTORY APPEAL 


' FROM SUPERIOR Count, 
Ve 
MILORED J. DAVIDSON, et al, 
Defendante-Appeliants. 270 TA. 61 3! 
Opinion filed March 29, 1933 
MR. PREGIOING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE CouRT. 
The compisinant filed its bill to foreclose « trust deed 
on the property of the defendants with « prayer for the appointment 
of a receiver to collect the rehts. On November 29, 1932, an order 
wes entered continuing « motion for the appointment of s receiver 
until November 3, i932. fhe order of continusnee bore the inserip- 
tion, "G.k. tm. B. Berger Solicitor for Anne Augustue." December 2, 


COOK COUNTY. 


1932, an order was entered appointing a receiver. This order recites 
that "the defendants Anne 5. Augustus, Allen liovey, Ide Hovey, 
Abraham Bernstein, Berths Gernstein, being represented in court by 
Wo By Serger, their solicitor," ete. ecember 29, 1932, defendants 
appeared in court and filed their mction supported by effidevits to 
vacate the order appointing the receiver. From the affidavits it 
appears that the attorney, Serger, was unknown to the defendants 
and was never euthorized to appear or secept service. Furthermore, 
it sppears from the affidavits thet the complisinant well knew where 
@efendants resided and could easily heve served notice of the 
applicetion for 2 receiver. It nowhere appears that any attempt was 
made to serve notice of the pendency of the motion of complainants. 
So far ss the record shows these facts are uncontroverted, 

The court refused to vacate the order of December 2, 
appointing a reeeiver, but entered an order amending thet order, from 
which it appesrs thet the court offered to grant a henring on the 





TART WOTIGO 
BOS AOLsettte udm ' 


me -YRHUOD oh 


'g10-.A.1 OSS — 
SSCL CS doreM beLlit aoltaiqdO Muce eet Tee pee * 
THOS BUT UW MOTHEI AkT Guen prar arnn Borreuy ert ce — 
 S0b Vaud w eeekooxwt ot GLid wk belt Faackelgmod - ot * 
taemtatonga ede tot Teper # dete adrababtel ote % anne — 
xrohas ns SCL 8S Todmevel nO .ebter att tostfos : 
qevieser 2 to tretaience eff tat notbow ix’ , feos ail 
‘wqiroand od? o1ed sonsuniteso te tebto sd? Lee eer | 
——— “,auteugea sank tet wortekio€ ota * a * ‘ ‘4 —— 
setiour sabtd old .xoviever # —— wie berets cen vebso. 1 
B —— —— 
witehaoteb eel ,3h rodebosg yore, sto! ie st cecal oe 
| et adtvebilte WW betrogqwe metdow state belt tas hap ‘Luan ae waa 
a ativebitts 47 nove .covteoog ent gatd ee ae 
i etasbasted edt ot avontite daw ,xogted , yennotie 
sStewrederwt evlverde tyeden te! tooese OF — 
oxedy wort iLow sataleiquon ond tad? atts h Stasyge Fs 
ody to oodten howréa oved qlince — ‘bate —8R —* . J 
ace Somertee yas elt ereeqae exeteon Fk — — 
























ronan 


af T8dme0ed ke tebee wit oenest ‘ot beastox hee’? ae 


wort rab sad? yaibuone vebte ae bevetas tus — 
ade #0 gninyes # taste ot herekko our: oae Balt wtem 






2 
question as to whether a receiver should be appointed, but defendants 
insisted upon their motion to vacate. The defendants not having 
been served with process nor having entered an appearance, were 
entitled to notice of the application for the appointment of a 
receiver. Grabowski v. Heclaskey, 257 Ill. App. 484; Chicago Title 
& Trust Co. v. Lowletts, 265 111. App. 564; Haj v. Americ 
261 Ill. 263. 

The appointment of receivers is an extraordinary proee ed- 





ing and they should not be appointed except in esses of emergency. 
Wotice should be given where « receivership ia applied for unless 
euch notice is excused for some good iegal reason. Nathan S. Dow Jo. 
Ve Deist, 143 lil. App. 364, 

It is insisted that upon the motion of the defendants 
te vaeate the order the court gave them an opportunity to question 
the propriety of « receiver and that by making their motien to vaente 
they submitted that question to the trial court, 4 resding of the 
record, however, discloses the faucet that en interlocutery appeal 
from the original order would have been unavailing inesmuch as the 
order appointing the receiver recited thet the defendants were 
represented by counsel, This order however, os it now appears did 
not state the true situation, and there was no way to present it to 
the trial court exeept by the motion to vacate. By preserving the 
record thie court now has before it on the interlocutory appeal the 
true situation ond we are of the opinion that the trisl court erred 
in entering its order of December &, 1932. The interlocutory appeal 
itself was perfected within the time preseribed by statute. io 
apparent éffort wes made to produce Berger, who appeared at the 
original proceeding and 0,K'd the order of continuance, for the pur- 
pose of showing by him whether or not he had any power to act as 
attorney for the defendants. either the court nor counsel for 


ie; 


ianbasted tid betniogye sé bivods tevlesen « tedtoty ef ox mo. om ° 
gnivad tom educhadts® ed? oteesy ot aotdon xhedt noqw Betetant 
ore ,adawresqqr me hetetae gaivet tom aeuseve dtly bevten aved 

# to tantaloqye odd wot noktnotiqgs edt te sokten of belettae 








BINT me DRL 0868 ofil [58 
— jae 


eeoreerame To nse squtdlé nekashagt'ot ae et : 


egeciawy tot Deasinoa ei qitsrerionet « sredy mevhg ed davo eis as roau 





| gimsbasteb edt toe noltos tadt dotabat sh PPo oe 


’ gebtwsu of Yiiswiaeqqs ae aed? oveg deseo wae tobte — 


etrouy ot soktom tiodt gatdem W tad? bes seviobet & te vintmorg edt 
eft to gathaer 4 stewed Inte? edt of modteoap tadt Detetudwa yods 


 Kebare crotetolsetal ae tut dost ode osnoloush rewecad ahronet 


“bt 62 dommorad gutttovany seed ovat diwow wabes! Latityine edt. sost 


wor etacheeted odg tade beticer cevieoer eet mittaleqys Tebto 


Bib wxsorcs wor t2 es ,xevewod vebre eidt .desaseo yd bedaosesget 
ot th tussetg of yew om eow ore? bas ,nostartis surt edd etete tom 
ad? Lneyqn yrotuneLueent eff ao of onoted ent wom dmven ald? brooes 
bexvse trees Leftd ode tad? gokalgo oft to et0 Ow haa toltertia swt 


Leoqqe grotesoltoent of? .ROOL .o reeimene? to taleo att gabrodae wt 
“Sit .ehitets of Battrwadey Gadd Ont wiitiw bevoetreq wer Bivedt 


edd ty betaacrs ose yteytel Sowers of Shem eaw SroPT tasnegae 
~taq wd? rot .canssudinos Yo reba) O8¢ 619.0 baa gabbesvony Lonégiro 


Se ein a ee | 





Pitiem i980 Aat TOS .xodeslodt ww Slgeedest «xevieoee — 
—— 7 hal (08 sae 0—— ob tent a 


,toeee?® Lenol boon Shoe tot Deayere wi Gaston doe - 
ee 


3 
Complainant seem to have been interested. Defendants head a substan- 


tial interest insemuch ag they were entitled te the rents from the 
time of the appointment of the reeeiver on December 3, until the 
time they uade their motion to vacate on becember 22. If they had 
been notified of the proceeding and appesred in the first instance, 
the burden would have been upon the complainant to present facts 
te the chancellor whieh would have justified him in the appointment. 
On the motion to vacate, the reverse is true and the burden was upon 
the defendants to advance reasons why the appeintment should be 
vacated. 

¥or the reasons stated in this opinion the order of 
December 2, 1932, appointing a receiver ia reversed, 

ORDER REVERSED, 


HEBEL AND BALL, JJ. CONGUR, 


chstedve « bed stashasied .beteetaias seed syed oF wee dmannd 
! eft nov? nines ado of beitia exon Youd 29 Soumaank teaeeten Lett 
ads Livau ,€ xedmeeeG aq teviseer edt to saentaleque add Yo amtt 
bed yodt 22% «BS tevmenet se atuoey — — ee 
cometank tent? add at Dowkecqa tas gatbeoe 








— timbales ue ad —* —X ee aol teow ‘atte “0: 





* xobsa edt gotaiee, ede ot Seta. smeense allies tine 


~beetever si tevinoed « —— 0 ante : 


a 





Sid Bebe ae 





<A aay iy 2S eae plas Seed nce “ 





meee We Ra i eo Mails: Dao ee by Kea ea Ra ie — 2 — wee —* 
aL gk eR Rie 28 J RET snare pee 
Kini ibs! pre § Ben —E F ig ud f 
ee ee ne eR eu 
- Orava alii its i‘ ‘Hs, ig — —* 1 sp Loonie i; 
Poul ee diese e Rey tb ORR et. tlw de alll 


ee eee. wast ee 
: ) e oy.) £ 7 Py Ay 4 J { 








BELEN M. LOTT (WILLIAMS), CHARLES K, 
WALTSA J. GRERNEBAUM, ag Voting T 
M. ERNEST GREENEBAUM, JR., ae Vot 
frustee, and CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS /as 
THRUST GOMPARY, a Corporation, 


(Plaintiffs) Apvelliees, 






bureRioR coURT 


Ve 
QOOR GOURTY. 
LOTT HOTELS, IKCORPORATED, » Corporstion, 
and FIDELITY AWD GASUALTY CoxrARY oF 


NEW YORK, a Corporation, 7 0 1 A 61 3 


(Defendants) Appeliante. 
Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

MR. JUBTICR HALL CELIVERED THE OFIALON OF THE COURT. 

By this appesi it is sought to review » judgment of the 
Superier Court of Gook County dated January 16, 1932, in favor of 
pisintiffe and against defendants for the sum of $5,000 and costes 
of suit. 

The suit is brought on an injumetion bend given by 
defendant on October 18, 1927, in a preceeding by defendant sgainst 
pisintiff and others wherein pisintiff was enjoined from transferring 
or permitting to be transferred certain voting trust certificates 
of stock in Lott Hotels, incorpersted, or the transferring of certain 
certifiestes of stock in Lott Hotels, ineorpersted, both heid in 
the name of Sharles H. Lott. 

The decisration alieges that the injunction issued ae 
prayed in the bili; thet on Geteber 20th, 1927, the bond sued on 
herein wes filed, smd thet on July i7, 1931, the injunction wes 
dissolved. The declarsticn further slleges that Helen 4. Lott is 
the owser of such stock certificetes and voting trust certifiertes; 
that at the time of the issuing and service of the writ of injunction 
the stock and voting truet certificates were worth the sum of 
$11,600; that because of the injunetion, plaintiff was prevented 
from selling such property, and th<t the value of the eteck and 


» 
—⸗ 







GG GRAM. « (GBALRLTB) TIO abl» 
Poet yokIov — 


You ae « — — * 
—* ————— dé THERT bas wore 3 
SOL Feteg tas #4 TAiwoo Bans. 


“eget AAP 





TOO so THmEd 





alls armen 








gp MOLFeTeQTed o — 
ee ) J—— — Gha TIES. Z 


gto. ‘ i 0 — sthagiiagga | —— — 
68— (68 dotsM belit aotsiqo — ect s ake 
moon BAT YO HOLELIO BHT GMIVIING UAH SORTER a hogenee 
ont To taemyoel © weiven of dtywee ef 42 Lesage made WM. 
te sevet at —R VV didi 
“ateen bus 000,30 Yo mae od WY atmmbmeleh geatege bus etharetelg 
YE seviy droid sedvonuial ae ao tdgeesd eb tiew eaBoo sie siesta, 
taniegs tushaeleh q gakbeenung # mi , TROL yi axiorod ae tasbasted — 
wekreetenats soxt beaiojpas ane Tete tale ahovedy awredte brs Teeadelg. | 
nedentisaroo dauts gaksov alesuee hewrshamars ad 08 eke sterey 10 
ikedteo to yaltteteasx? ed? w ,boteroqtemal siviow tes ak doote to 
ak Bled déed ,beteteqroenl ,sietei Hed af Aeeve to possottlinos & 





os Deunnt modteangad ott sade negate mabbunalith CURA bitin 


we bese baod odd ,8SCL ,d20% xadeted we eady jikkd est mk boyere 

ase Moitoaypas ode ,S86L Ti ye wo tadt bos ,delkt vow stored 
jartasitiecso dautt gaistov ban aetneitigies Joote dove to xec8o edt . 
coisenutat te stew ad¢ Yo cetvsen Ome yaluwad ond Ro omit ont fe Some 
RO aus aNd déxow oxOW sedORtee” taut guigoy kas seots edt 
 Retmevery acm T2Lindalg .colvomutad edt Yo gunned sede 40084 J 
—XX edt te euler ot todd has — — — 







2 

certifientes during the interim between the issuing of the injunetion 
and the dissolution of the same, depreciated in value to nothing, and 
that plaintiff wae compelled to ond did pay out the sum of 85,000 

in solicitors fees in procuring the dissolution of the injunction, 
Defendants filed two pleas, nil~debit and pon-dampifientug. The cause 
was submitted to 2 jury, which found for the plseintiff, and assessed 
plaintiffs’ daasges at the gum of $5,900, upon which verdict the 
judgment sppesled from wre entored. 

There ig no evidence in the reeord that any amount was 
paid out by plaintiff for sttorneys fees ae alioged. The questions 
presented to this court are whether or not under the evidence adduced, 
the trial court was justified in submitting the case to a jury, and 
“if a0, whether there ie sufficient asterial evidence to sustain the 
verdict. it seems to be admitted by defendants that if there was an 
actusl depreciation in the fsir aerket vaiue of the preperties in 
the interim between the issuing ond dissolving of the injunction and 
the amount of such depreciation is shown by proper evidence, that 
plaintiff's recovery herein is justified. The ownership we ‘punintd $e) 
of the properties involved is not disputed, 

For the plaintiff, over the objection of defendant, one 
Perrigo testified that he was the manager of » securities brokerage 
Goncern in Chicago; that he had been in the seourities brokerage 
business for 12 years, snd that there were sales in the open morket 
of Lott Hotels, Incorporated, stock about Cetober, 1927, and that 
‘the stook ia dexlt with in unite of one share of preferred and a 
quarter share of common stock." The witness stated that *these units 
sold between seven and eighteen deollars per unit"; thot in November, 


1931, there were sales of these units but thet eales in the open market 
six or eight months prior to July, 1931, *I did not know definitely 


ban gaattton of -ewter 1d —— — tae te nodes iw A it 
ot gSt He mre ent tuo Yoo BAD bee oi batngie ame Teen balle | 
stolteastat ed? to soltuloomkh odF ee — — —— 
boseenen ban Wtltudete oda tot Rawet doddw ‘dheet’ a be bord — gai 
bd tekbreW doudy ogy .000,8% to mum oie-de oii satan 
: : | beridno ese moet Bele * ame 
now faite ne OR eres Pd GUO senebive om ad eredt 
‘gaehvasup ed? .begeile ea aest eqemrnote: wot Pitnteta wh deo Bkeq 
peoahioe eorebive a4t tehmr don zo eedtelty sua Htubo ath of BetewoTy 
ban ,tayt © of Seco et? gaittindse wi bertivent saw — —— 
- gi Winvene of sensbive Gitehes aen dre eee ee 
An haw oreds Ut tett etashnsteh yw bettinbe od ot —“ —D 
aah — ade te swiew feteew tint of? ab ne s#kioonye: | 
tall sooth ave setore 4 anvils ab aot⸗occacaec Mt 
Havas inal qidersdwo ott paste al — — —— 
ete tae. te te moltostds att rove Crttenaely 
ogerodory ‘peteauvete a te Tonnins add ai Darl i 
egoredord eokiiauese edt af axed ded od Halle jogeaide at MASOOD 
#o¥rem wegd Sdt 4 Belen wren ovield Hod Bae — — 
——02 wider 
9 bee bevtetery te evade gne Yo avler ak tee tase k teote « 
whiny seed¢* godt Betete eaentiv odf “wltota wommeo 
- qyadwevet ai godt — —— 







































pS RAR a ia acu Fa 
saan oqo edt ai modes tae fud nétuw | 0 eolies eon | | 
viordaltad wont doa ete * eet ze. ‘out of xolza — idvow adj 


ed) h eels ke Am aac — ie —* 
— iis 





3 

about." He further testified that there was a eale of a unit at 
#3.60 per wage pa Merman L931, and that he could give the ask 
and bid sultan in duly, i931, there waa a nominel bid of $2.00 per 
unit at thet time, but that he knew acthing of the detaila of the 
asie. On Cross-examination, thiz witness testified that he did not 
know whether ony of these sales referred to were closed or not, but 
that all he knew of the alleged asle was what someone had told him, 
and thet neither the voting trust certificates nor the eteck in 
question were listed on any exchange, On redirect examination, this 
witness was asked whether or not there wee a market for these prop- 
erties in OSotober, 1927, and in reply he testified that there was 

a market, but thet he did not knew of any sales. ‘This ritness 
further stated “the things thet passed from seller to buyer in these 
1937 transactions were regular stock certificates; that they were 
not voting trust certificates like these exhibite.* 

fe shown by the reeord, these voting trust certificates 
provide thet Charles KH. Lott is entitled to reveive certein shares 
ef preferred atock of Lott Noteis, Incorporated of the par value of 
$100 each upon the termination of an agreement aenticned in such 
cértificetes; that no stock oertifiestes are to be isaued thereunder 
until an indebtedness of $3,500,000.00 end interest of Lett Hotels, 
Incorporsted, had been paid. 

Perrigo was the oniy witness produced by the plaintiff 
upon the question as to whether or not the stocks and voting trust 
sertificates had any vaiue or had depreeisted in value in the interin 
between the issuing and dissolving of the injunction. fhe defendant 
moved the trial court te instruct the jury to find the issues for 
the defendant, which motion was denied, and the instruction tendered 
was refieed, the defendant then produced verious stock brokers, 
who testi ties) they had never sold any of these sroperties and had 
no knowledge of any wach properties ever having been sold. 


& 
¢e dln 2 to ies © now oradd todd Redtdguad wedemut ot. Avtwode 
«gee oft orig Piven of @ndd dan .S8CL. etal Bh Rien. 208 A 
toy 00.53 ke bad dantoon « gen avodt ——— ———— 
od? to aliated edt te pRidden wead od tate ted .ombt aadt ¢s thaw 
dom blb od sad? baltstes¢ ansatia aid? ,unddoy. eameo 6 4 pha 
et ROS i MOORE: ER OO AON PROP ee 
ai deege edd rom eetecitisuce, Seurt gadtee edt aeétlea dade Ane 

eid? ,solésainens so@isboe 20. aagnaton® yaa so betedd eter mokteenp 
“qety seadt ant fedzes « aca seed? fay so raiteds Detea ape meeetie 
tae sxedt fedt keikatee? ad ylqos ai bas WEL .cedered at. ehtee 
avenging eff! .welee yao to wend tom bib ot tadé god yhesizem a 
cand? al veyed of celine moxt doncaq ded) egatd? ede” bodate wedemih 
eter YOR? tedt yostoottagsee deote tedarget over enoltonement TROL 
ett iGidxe seed? ohh aeteedtigaeo. Amat: gn item. ae 
sotaett ities turas yeisov teeds ,breost odd wi swede mA J 
aetade pingtes ov⸗eooa ot bphtitae as ated aptibnmanieeas 
Re bulev aq sd? Yo Dagareqrens! ,eledel $a) to soote Sortetemy Te 
foun mi benolinsx snomenys ae Te. noi) subset oft equ doae 0088, 
tohavereds Bowsal e¢ of ete eetaallis1eo deote on godt eoreoktidzen 
saietot tod to tansotet bas G0,000,008,5} te aagnketdebsi maine 
Btsalaly oft yw baoubors pnentin vine — — Re ot 

tertt guitoy hae elects 2d% tun to xodvodw ot ã — 

aizotat ait at euley at Detatoongeh bed vo exiav qin bad ————— 
jusbooteh off .sodteanhal edt to gaivignntd bas gatumsl edt seentes. 
: wok seunet od¢ badd oF vrut od? tountent oF trH09 Latch oeh hevem. 
barebney aoivouttent add as | h new motton dotde stecbaerad ot 


— 


“qbtosord aeore avedter — — taebasted 9dr showitex see 


ores cee iz 2 ey A 


bad dae — vase te ene bide seven had yout \pochstent ete 
~bioe aesd eatved Tove esi¢xegot: dows ye to spbotwors en 








In order thet she might recover in this action, it waa 
heoessary that plaintiff show the fair market value of the prover=- 
ties in question on the date of the injunction, and that during 
the interim between the granting of the injunction and dissolution 
thereof, these properties hed decreased in their market vslue. There 
is not a scintiila of proof in the record as te the value at any 
time of these voting trust certificates, and preef of only one exle 
of atocok in Lott Hotels, Incorporated, so that there ia no evidence 
in the record to sustain the sliegetion in the declaration that 
"at the time of the issuance of said injunction the steok and 
voting $rust certificates deseribed in the bill of complaint and 
the transfer and/or delivery of which was enjoined, were of the 
market value of $11,600, and that at the time of the dissolution of 
anid injunction, the value of said certifientes had depreciated to 
nothing; that the amount due plaintiffs from defendants is $5,000," 
or that there ie due from defendant te plaintiff any aum whatever, 

Upon the evidence addueed, the triel court should heve 
directed a verdict for the defendant. fhe judgment is reversed 
and the cause remanded. 

REVERSED AND SEMANDED, 





— ——— * 


aoe dell — eked at — — * ete bed gebee — 





ored? — deduem tied? ai bene 7 de 
| * ‘ta outer ‘edt —* his — hiv ri. tein we siddvalee oth 











* 


bas toota 6d) ‘aottonutal bier Ye © 

‘ne tatsionee to Lid ont wt todaeoncd assaedt * 
Gd} to ote onkoan eow Hokde te yrowbieb —* —VV eae 

“$6 ln i onfite gult edt dx Fete ban” eel wy view text 

et batrioerged Dak aptoottianeo Bice to euiev one aodbenetar bbs 
®,000,89 ef eimebawies mott sYtigatals sob dan 

“neveteiy awe Ye Tiltelale of tashasteb moxt —— todd x0 
ovat bineds devoo Ielxe ate ,Beeubbs eamsbive ——— SE, SR: 


cai obec 


beesover | 7 sirens. Be ont Aan ataein ⸗ tethtey 5. 

















n 4 —— V 7 
ere 
Ee - NR ERS Bat SNe aS ay: 





aa — oa wes 


— or Ae ye, 1 fay Aelia Ra oc sai alia LP ae TN 
v ig a gl ed 





She Bis Gh Malay oh Seton n). Teel aaa — > alee. 
See ek ee: SU RN ac Ss ae seine: Ber Sehr oe 
ies ¥ WOE Recency a tata Rs — is Jad a evan : 


kre Arisaema Si ieee gee De ais shah at Br, afi r nk 
bo 







ARESTOEE ROCCR GSTS SR MT See * — ae 
Sit hey ga ae ereque, Raat ot ee meren wy 
BAe ape Pins egy Jy a 4 ey St fae A rh iys x eee ee isle Beeston * 9 








A 


* 


35903 Cf 


BERNICE KAPLAN, Adminkstratrix of the ~ ⸗ 
State of ABK KAPLAS, Decersed, Aven FROM 


(Plaintiff) appellant, | 
Ve MUMICIPAL count 


GUST DEMOS, - — 
(Defendant) Appellee. ¢ 0 JAG 1 3 


Opinion filed Maroh 29, 1933 

MA. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OFINiON OF THE GOURT. 

By this appeal plaintiff seeks to have reviewed a judg- 
ment for costs of the wunicipal Court of Chisago entered in thet 
@ourt in s suit by Abe Keplan against defendant on « scentract dated 
\Jamuary 2nd, 1931, by the terms of which Kaplan, » contracter, 
agreed te furnish end install in premises belonging to defendant 
at 614 NorBh Paulins Street, Yhiesgo, certain plumbing, pipes, 
equipment and fixtures end a stesm hesting plant, aecording to 
specifiestions made a part of the contract between the parties, for 
the sum of $1,800.00, Fending the suit, plaintiff died, and his 
wife, Berniee Kaplan,/was by ordez of the tris court, substituted 
as party plaintiff. 

In hie affidavit of claim, ‘aplen slieges thet he hed 
completed all the pluebing work vrovided to be done by the contract, 
amd in addition, had done certain extra work in connection with the 
pluabing, not provided for in the contract. He siso alleges thst 
he hed prepared sil the heating fixtures, cut pipe and necessary 
equipment provided for in the specifications, and hed delivered them 
to defendant's premises at 614 North Pauline Street for instalistion; 
that on the 7th dsy of February, 1931, he presented himself with a 
helper at such place ready to complete the work as provided by the 
sontract, but thet defendant refused te aliew hia to preceed with 
the work, but ordered him from the premises. He charges defendant 





88CL ,CS dowel belit soiantgo ae $i — | i Sis st 
VRMIOe s#T W KOTHTTO Rit Casey Lead san aeeTest | — te ona 
~gbut Kbewaivet @vsd at alleos Wiitalalg Leorga aide e een Be | 


¢edd nk Satesed oguatdd te oe: ‘gaa todaik sae —J nue J J 4 
dot ab serinve sno taahaokeh suntege nalgnd tba v sis — —2 
“grofsettass 2 — deide to smeey odf e leet ll wa ni — | 
dnatdeteh of yatgneted asetwore at Listait bas Helinut ot Booty 
| yewrte gatdenin dtetrte ojashde jtoors® edtiuet dikeoh Bt 
‘oo gxlbvéoce ,ttele yattaed meets @ Saw got — An 
tot ysolttan add woowted tostéace edt Yo Yung # oben edbldee 
“Ghd ban {herb Yabtitate okie ‘ede gadtedt 60.008, 
dotud btedire — ‘fates oft sa thie —* cma pees 






















bad ed tedé eogolie selqs% yatelo to tivabktt — om 
\ atsaxtaoe edd yt ewan ed of behivoety axow gn below Se oad ade heraignos 
git dtiw noitooasoe af Aver atte aloetes ssob bat sous tbe as ius ) 
tedt eegeiic ovules wi .toerines ode mt aot bekiverd tom “¢ tans te 
‘Ytsensoen bas egg two ,eotstxst gaitesad edt iis bewsgong dad od 
med¢ beteviied Gel tne ,esolseediioeqe tif ai cot bebiveny adea ups : 
(yaoltellagent tot sears? eaiinet Adcot MB ta adeinetg attashaet sd oF 
2 dtiw tlevatd betmeqeng od ,i8Gi .yusuzdel te yeb d2¥ od? ao tend | 
odt yo bebtvens wn drow edt vtelyaeo of yhaex ooaly dove te aoated ‘ 
itty hevoomy af att wells of Beqwter dashaeten dedd tard Shee 
dnsbdasted enguode a .aendnong ont mmek east esenee tind on * 











3 
with the smount of the contract price agreed to be paid for the 
work, plus $74.00 for extra work and $75.00 for attorney's fees, 
making a total charge of $1,949.99, Plaintiff gives defendant 
eredit for $5900.00 in ongh paid him, and slee oredits defendant 
with the smount pleintiff estimates it would cost him to complete 
the work, or 9588.75, making s total credit of $1,088.75, end 
asks 2 judgment for $860.25 and costs of suit. 

in his affidevit of merits, defendant denies that the 
plumbing work wes completed, or thet plaintiff wae prepered to or 
did offer to camplete the heating plant, end alleges that secording 
to the contract between the vertices defendant mes to use union 
labor on the job; that while he was engaged in the work, plaintiff 
endeavored to work after union houra and thet the representetives 
of « labor union ordered pisintiff's wen off the jeb ond stepped 
the work; that he, defendant, had nothing to de with stopping the 
work, and thet he was willing thet plaintiff should complete it, 
previded he would do it with union labor and without interruption. 

There is no provision intthe contreet that the work 
should be performed by union labor. It does crovide thet the work 
shall be started January Sth, 1931, but nothing is ssid as to the 
time of completion, eo thet we aust presume that the work was te 
be completed within a ressonsble time after January Sth, 1921. Two 
witnesses for pleintiff testified that the plumbing work agreed to 
be done was started on January Sth, 1931, and finished on February 
Sth, 1931. A representative of the bepartuent of Health ef the 
Sity of Chicago produced the records of that department and teetified 
that an inspection and test was mde of certain portions of the 
plumbing work on January 16th, 1931, and thet the werk inspected 
passed the teat, and thet a final inspection was made on July 16th, 
1931, and that the departuent “passed the job." 

it seemea to be agreed by both parties that about the 






att cot Sing ed ef Seetae sodtg terxsnee nae te tausn⸗ oat atts 
.s00T Oo yartotee 4o2 06,80 bas teow aneze ot — ante: 3 ‘a 
‘@eobasteb gevitg Thiteisit .00,.0a8 3 te egxade Later « gubden 
tradanted atthers ools das yukd Diet dan ak 00,008 tot ttbero 
ipeeganee ot mid tage. ivan $h @etouttoe Ttetaiadg Fessome ode iisbe 
ae ———— to sabets Lated weit am Aar 0880 se itew ‘edt 
cTOT’ p23 dna RY abeae hae 26.0008 xo tesmpbut ates 
stilt ia “iain spades ‘ed biiioapamas oa ; x 
wo ef beveqenr enw Mitateie fidt we (hotelgmed exw teow geidawle 
guilroons ged? aegeila Sen ,taaly gadtamdt att stoiquen a 20¥te bth 
Roku Sat ot ame tinted eelieny Odd néewted Seavteind ede of 
n tta laln ytnow ont st begage tow et ‘eLide deitt Got all 1 ee 
eavitoddsasae: ot tad? ban eumd ee pratbas 
ad¢ patqqote dete ob ot 6 Sictiatte thal tate: fake swe any 
4th stelquem hivede Thivatel, gedd gud iGte’ wow ea —— — 
— tuowtin bee rode agkaw ci aun· tt ob bivee of shiva 
dieew edt ted genutnes ede at notetvens, on at enmity ; 
dixon off ted? ebiverg seed ¢h eroded coke yt — of bl wa ~~ 
adt of on bios et guidton tus L0G .de8 yrummal betwase od Eade 
Of aew deo oft ted? smwraona teu ow todt on aoltelenen teu 
ork .AP@L ,dt? yess aedta outed eldanonaee & thier stein * — 
ot beoxys drow galduwly adt tedt battisend WReatecg wo? — 
rraunaen no betelet? bas OL yt yraueel mo dederte’ eon * 
tilt Lo ad laon Yo coomtunget ase te evbsatwonsmee A LEON its 
——— ——— beoatone eae ao Ye ae 
| ed? te enolteroq mtareec to shan mew tees haw udit — 
“hegesrsal Axon ot godt Sas (LOL ABI yom ae Meow aA fw 
—— aon hae eae — — — al * —— sana — 
edt tonde tat ontteag sted wi bemrgs od of aanon #t 







































3 
middle of January, 1931, because of troubles with labor unions, the 
work to be done under the contract wie stopped. 

The Seeretary of » Building and Loan association, which 
hed made « loan to defendant te pay for the work to be done on his 
building, testified that about the middie of January, 1931, he had 
peid plaintiff 9600.0) on secount; thet the parties had been having 
trouble about the installation of the heating stant, involving 
union labor, and that he enlied Kaplan and defendant to his office 
and toid them thet unieag the work proceeded he would sancel the 
loan and refuse to pay out ony more money. On February Sth, 1921, 
defendant wrote gaplan thet unlese he commenced the hecting plant 
work by Saturday morning, Febrmry 7th, 1931, at 9 c'eloeek, the 
Gontract would be null and void, snd that he would held plaintiff 
idable for “any eadditionsl expenditure” he should be put to. 

One Kiser, a heating contractor employed by plaintif?, 
and one Oryfoos, a heating engineer, testified thet eon February 7th, 
1931, they vent to defendant's buiiding prepared to begin the work 
of installing the heating plont, and that defendant informed them that 
he had made other srrangewents and that they should not start on 
the work, and ordered them to leave the premises. 

Frank J. Euoher, the general contractor empleyed by 
defendan’ to do the remodeling of the building in which this plumb- 
ing end heating plant work were to be installed, and Jehn M. Arnoldy, 
a heating engineer, testified that they were at the premises in 
Question on the mpgning of february 7th, 1921, from @ o'olock until 
one in the sfternoon, and that neither plaintiff nor eny one repre- 
senting him appeared on the scene. 

The question as te whether plaintiff unressonebly delgged 
the work contracted to be done was submitted to the court. Yefendant 


) ce NED 
ont ,enoiay nosed a ew solduart te eouened fees. — * estes 
: .beegate aon twarineg olf aoda sab of of en 

doidg ——— Aoai bas gelhifati c te Yxatenest eat | 
sid ag eae od of dzow odd sot yeq oF taohasteb ad neni * stem bod 
had od giBGL ,yteaneh Yo elbbig edt tuode Past bettatser os - 
gaived mewd bed settieaq ect fede peageooe He 0640088 that pied ¢ Dine 

_ pelvievas stasia Badd nad oa? to, RosteLiotens oat tuata suavore 

anette nid of tnshasteh bas asigat belige od test baa stodal woke 
Wit dooms SSyow ed Rebeseery sxow, oft popiaw tat ot hoe bene 
s1B@E, aas yrawzdeT 69 xenon exom wae tye Yeo of seter hae aook 
_ tnale — ont hopaennce od pee dnir a 













trae add atged ot toners suited «'mabasteh of abr ved tat 
tedt madd bewretat gaehaeleh gedt bae .taslq galsoud ont ; eth Le 


«tes min ao. ted bostitees — — 4 








MO trate tom dives yodt tadt bie etammogacrs, 
 smonkaosg, pdt wvnes et nant boxetee bas *— t 4 

Ww povelons toteottnos leremey ode aredtows, + kane | J 
~inwiq etd? doide ab gubbitwd ed? to patishoass edt ob ot 9 geniuotee 
‘Woiewrs 6 adel hae phelierent ed e¢ stew sees tania yatteed San yak 
i avaiawrg sd? te exer yedt teas testitess stesadgee aatioed & 

_ kbtow Saoloto & mont AECL AIT yrauayt Yo gateman on? a2 Rostenup 
anges ato Yas ton Witntealg redtiea tadt Man wogmrodte Me Saal bid 
bogntad idosonvvany YEEEIASe tohtote oP we. oIROCD 9 * 
snabae 90 meee CBF 08: 2M ET RE thas 

















» 4 ait 2 Logie " \ * 
i ow io i Be Se, ie. 


& 
was threatened with the cancellation of the loan with which he was 
to pay for it. ‘hatever the cause of the delay any have been, it 
could not be said to have been the fault of defendant, who, as 
the record shows, finsily had the heating plant installed — work 
whieh defendant was to have performed under his contract - at a 
cost to defendant of $1100.00. Befendant notified Kaplan thet 
unless he began the work by a certain time, he would have it done 
elsewhere, Pisintiff's witnesses testified thet they were on hand 
ready to complete the work st the time fixed by defendant. 
Defendant's witnesses testified that they were not, and the record 
showa that plaintiff never completed the work agreed to be done. 
The trial court as and heerd the witnesses, and the record shows 
that he told these whe testified for plaintiff, in open court, that 
they were not teliing the truth on this vitel and meterial question. 
We se@ no résson for disturbing the finding of the court, 
and the judgment of the Municipsl Court of Chiesge is affirmed, 
APPIRHED. 
WILSON, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONCUA, 





sw od toide the med of0 Yo aodtaliogneo edt atte bane Dial 
th ,xood oved yom. yokeb ode do ——— sth, 902, you ot 
as ade ,ianteoteh to giver od? decd owed.od Aine od tou biwoo 
2s ta + tomténee etd ——s——— ovall of mow — —⏑— —— — ny, 
“tnd aaiqek Saitetem émadasted, 09,0041), re tashagted of $909 
ones tt eved Diver of ated aiatzon « ef anew. aft aeped — Me 
atisbaeteb qi heed? andd o62, te rom ait. ade 
_Ssaost oft baa .tea otew yoad gade heltidess seaeents 
- eRed od of hoeTgs xcon o4t hotadgaog soves Mitatole 
erode drogen sid kag gaoegantin and brset Aas wan, Sass 
tade gtuwoo mage ah yUbetndady go, dedtitest odw. swe: 
— Sarason aa Letiy ald? so Sdn? ont gablin 
«étdon ed? Iq gathal eft galdnedeth wot monets of MOR PE 









a ME ee Ms SMe TT Lay 3 Cone ae esti — 


— —8 fs he MRE rr ee ee ea — ORR A ie eee 
* she SEPA. GUE RN Pi Os ei —* — 








pie i —E mci stay Sal 
RE, A CY A EE EE ee 
VORO ht oy nents isha ate 


‘ 
ea Ds 7a ; LSE Wee a Re — HERVE wee 





PRARREL SE. »iiwes o8f eh dial ok see 
. ey a! os cig SA de 


— 
35933 ⸗ 


CITY OF CHICAGO, APPEAL FROM 
Plaintiff, Appelies, 





MUBIOLPAL COURT 


Ve 
SAMUEL GLAUBACH, : _ OF OHTOAGO. f 
efendant, Appellant. 270 LASGES 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

WR. GUETICE HALL DFLIVERARD THE GPINLOW GY TH® QOURT. 

Thie is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court 
ef Ghicago entered in =» proceeding wherein defendant is charged 
with assaulting one Ruth Didon in violation of Seotion 4210 of 
the Chicago Yunicipal Cede. The ease was tried by the court without 
@ jury. The court found the defendant guiity sa charged and 
aesessed « fine of $10.00 and costa. 


This case has been consolidated with Ko. 35952, and 
for the reasons expressed in that case, the judgment is «ffirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 


WILSON, F.J. AND HEBEL, J. concuR. 





™ goat dant A 


* 


| 
Jv 
009 MAGEDTRUM 


OBAOTHO YO | 
‘eTo -A.1 ove —R 
EEC CS doteM boLit miniqo’ 

— ant Wo worWrdo J aannvi am dai sorter ~ 








bogresdo si tiilheich alibiaiie’ ielibiaiidie a ‘ae * jae one kdy \ 

te OLS soktowl So acitetody af aobtt dtut eno yattivesed dt] 

tuodthe tases odo ys boitd wom Onno sift theo Leghotemi eysntdo od € 
bate amram ea wiley dasbavtes odd Senet Oxwee ad? oytut se 

, —* fan satan —F * a 











baa — * —————————————— 


— ——— ca | itty 


shawzktie ef taemghur, ode geese teat ai henson teheewn 6th wit 
<AUOROO .% ATOM Ca .b.% yRORIER 





35931 | & 
HAZEL WHITTAKER, /) APPEAL FROM 





Appellee, f 
; MUNICIPAL GPUR 
Ve 


CENTRAL TRUST OOMPARY OF ILLIROIS, COOK COUNTY. 


a Corp. end ETTA SURKIN, 


Appellant. —27— 0 — J 61 4 


Opinion filed March 295 1933 





MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

By this appeal this court is asked to review a judgzent 
of the Hunicipsal Gourt in o suit by plaintiff against Central 
Trust Comeany of [illinois and Etta Surkin,, defendants, in which 
plaintiff alleges that she suffered injury te her person because of 
the negligence of defendants. The oeuse was tried by the court without 
a jury, which found the defendants guilty and assessed plaintiff's 
damages at the sum of 7200.00, and entered judgment om the finding. 
The Central Trust Company of Illincis alone proseoutes this appeal. 

On the 28th day of August, 1928, «= document called a 
"trust agreement" eas executed by the Sank of America, 2s trustee, 
and Harry Surkin and Etta Surkin, as beneficiaries, in which it is 
reeited "that the Senk of America as trustee is about te take title’, 
to certein real estate, deseribing it; "that when it has teken the 
titie thereto, it will hold it for the usee and purposes and upon 
the trusts herein set forth," and that “Harry Surkin shail be entitled 
to the earnings, avails and proceeds of said real estate", either 
by this instruswent, nor by any other document appeszring in the record, 
is there any conveyance made to the trustee of the property described. 
It is provided by this instrument that all the earnings, availe and 
proceeds of the property shall belong to the beneficiaries; that 
the wanagenent, control, selling, renting end handling of the property 
shall remain with the beneficiaries, and that the trustee shail net 






—— — Ene i ae a ee 

a 

e¥THVOG BOG - \aroutcal hy) ae 
6 —— 
08 — 


SSCL “eS dowsh petit, notnigo EL SPL gt REET 
rauan WCE RD UOT AD ENE ARIAS LA BOTTEUL coe” 
fremiwt # waiver of betes ak tea atte: knande' SY 
atsusd senings VRivataly qs thwe ek waued Lngkoimns ede ke 

doits nt yctnabateb-\gatteu? otha baw wtonhtit Re ym ot tert 
Ye eevsned nonseq * Pr * boxers te ——— n nate 
agethadt off Ro fmompbut Sereeas: baw —— pes me wd 8 negacd 
oLneqge sii eeduoowerg oaot⸗ etoatist te yanqaad — jot oat 


LAS OPS AE SRE. WS i 


8 boLiso 2aemeod ® eee ‘sfeugan 2, God ree edt a0 oma oa. 

— ma — Yo —— qd betuoere ean *PaeReeTyS tewne* 

ai ¢) doide at ,uetxetoltened ae eaktes® ote% Bae alaaos vere ban 
"OLtht exist of tuods= 1 setewtt ox wotvoms to amet ont add’ bethoes ae 
od? madet ead $i aodw dadt” 194 gud teaueh ,otetes Lear adadees oF” 
moov bag seseqtw: bas ages edd wot ¢i Ako Life ti pe ‘eieie 
beltiiae sd Iieda aidw yuseH* Jad? bon "diet tee aleved efewrt edt 
— of 
sbreose oft at gaicaeqqe taenwech ted¢a yan ys ton tnemuns act aide xe 
shadizoesh ytrsqery edt to eevewrt ot ot sham eoreysrnen Yue oroa⸗ at 
bas elieve .egadnres eff Iie ted? tenewnteant eld? yd bebivety ak J— 
ted? jasivaiolteded sit of gaoled acis ytveqenq on? to absesorg 
yiroqory ed¢ to gitibaad bas guider .gniiles .forines sIaezegeaas ade oP 
ton ifede ostertt odt tedd Baw ,eedvatedtensd sd¢ dthw abeaar &. ae 





















2 
be ecalied upon to do anything in the management of the property. 
By the consolidation of the Uank of America with the Central 
Trust Oompany of Illinois, the latter succeeded to whatever obliga- 
tions the Senk of America assumed under this instrument. 

It is claimed by plaintiff that by reason of this se- 
Called trust arrangement, the Central Trust Company of Iiliinois, to- 
gether with L. Le. and M. . Saleh and blia Gurkin “each individually 
er jointly orned, possessed and either directly or indireotly asn- 
aged, contracted and had the leasing" of the building on the land 
desoribed in this “trust agreement", and that plaintiff who was a 
tenant occupying an apertment in a building on such premises, was 
injured through the negligence of defendants. Snich and Belch, 
who seem to have been renting agents, were dismiased from the suit. 

We find nothing in the record to indieste that the 
defendent, Central Trust Company of Illinois, had the possession of, 
or the right of the peseeseion to or any control over the property 
in question from which it can be held that « duty was imposed upen 
the Central Trust Company of Iliincis with regard to the aatter 
upon which the charge of negligence herein is based. 

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment be reversed 
ah’ wnat for a new trial, 

REVERSED AND REMANDED, 


aa | 
egtreqeta ed? Yo taameneres Od? wh gebityne ob of seq balias od 
fstteed adt dtiw soisomi Yo Xnot oft Mo woltehlivsage edt yo 
-aniide novedades of bebeowosne seetal oho .ehomZili te .yieqne? testT 
stuasmttent eidt sepas , Ba WA * te dns ont enoat 
_ "a ald? Yo moeser ys godt Mtendosg W Demtede mt at 
“et eetout ist to Yasyno? geet Lereneo ett ‘staouagaerts gaurd belles 
qtaubivibar Mee* itd atcd — oie oft oil baum a a“ ste sadteg 
fas ‘yltoorkbas ‘ge Udoortd zedtie bus berwaosoc ¢ 9s me 
bret edt no “gakblind edt to “Wgndeaes oad hed ban —* 4 : 
o tow ode Tribttata teat bas — ——— at be 
aew ,sonlménq dows a0 “giired ted & ae om : 1G op tanned 
* “Hotes bas doit ——— * 2 sonea tigen at 4 favorit bexutat 











— 


4 tact steotbat ot — ote ak yetitton Es — od ale 
6 ‘aotensasoq sits ‘bad satomtlit te vaeanod tosrst vine ® .euahas : 
‘gireqets sd? rove Lexises yaa to ef sotaeseson — 
soqs Besoqut caw ytuh a dont bios og neo $2 tote mom sotveeup at 


z ye —— Sein 


— sredgan add of brogor tis iow hist re Vinquo’ tent fort Lovaned * 
ca : Le Avis 


dbeend at akored oon ozi tzen * wptado ai | 
“Beaxover od —J—— ots dade boxehao , <onolereds gat a 





Bathe — — 





tk wel Val  Sauso edt — 
| hates wen * 5 tot — \e. 
: 4J es es yi 4 ‘eat wae — 


HGRA aia aseravan 


Ali ik eet i — | 
Dake 9 Wee — — oe Re me —— * eae ‘ 


sted et Shen dy SO sb tt 


234 
J R i — 
ith EE OHI wi a We ¢ wey | 
i h 
fare gS RNY ‘ees. Sway eg 
i brane —— — — iy fe op a 
Bored 
g % va * ¥ — Ss ¢ 
—— 
+t. ¥ ¥ * ie CBs nde —— SBR & 
ee Lh ‘¢ Be i * * sige 





369563 
GITY OF CHICAGO, 
Plaintiff, Appellee, —/ 
Vs — MUWLOTPAL coun 
SAMUEL GLAUBAGH, ‘ 
Defendant, Appellant. 


" BOP RAL, FROM 





OF ae oy 


QO 1.A.614 


Opinion filed March PG fa 3 


do 


MA, JUSTIGR HAL, UELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR GoUuRT. 

This is an appesl from s judgeent of the Municipal Court 
of Chicago entered in a proceeding wherein defendant ia charged 
with assaulting one Mergelat Cunne in viclation of Section 4310 
of the Chicago Municipal Code. fhe case wae tried by the court 
without » jury. The court found the defendant guilty es cherged 
and asseseed a fine of 710.00 and coats. 

The record discloses that there was considerable con- 
trariety of testimony 2a te whether the alieged acaault ves 
Comaitted or not. Two witnesses,one the ecompisining witness in 
this case, the other her sister, testified thet the defewilent, 
without provéeation, asseulted both of these witnesses. This was 
denied by the defendant. A woman employes of defendant testified 
that she did not see the asseult, or hear any controversy. 

The court heard and anw the witnesses and we find nothing 
in the record whieh would justify this court in reversing the 
judgaent of the trisl court. The judguent is, therefore, affirwed, 

AFFIRMED. 


WILSON, PJ. AND HEBEL, J. CONCURS. 





‘bro ae — 


— 8S dors boiit —— 
«HUGO GAY WO WOIEIIG Bu? Caravicae sant — werren. — use iby 
Cran devheham O6t 2a emnmahuh 4 Mek LENT Ae SEAMED * 
_ begtede ef tasinoted aioxoda 7 ook 





sake ost. tnt —— — sod vadde ef? ,ven0 etd 
new RAAT pwoementia seed ty déod Detivaven .woktens 
bestitaed tachastsd Yo osyoigne maeow A 4 










vill antatsiinin he peta abde tonal Mahinda ~ 
ebontitts ,erotered? .9f tneagbut eff Fauve esp * bal ete 
— — TTL 56 ane — 


.ugast 6% Ausan CHA — 





36484 


THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COWUPARY OF 
AMERICA, a Sorperstion, 


(Complainant) Appellee, 





y 
: 


¥e FROM SUPERIOR COURT 


SAMUEL J. RIGHMAN, et al, 


(Defendants), | COOK COUNTY. 


— 


Om OENIEL G- MARKS and BESSID RICH ry r 
teh . “me 92'70 I.A. 614 


(Defendants) Appellants. 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

BR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPISTOM OF THE COURT. 

This is an interleoutory appesi from an order of the 
Superior Gourt of Cook Gounty sppeinting « receiver in » proceeding 
to foreclose « mortgage on reel estate deseribed in the bili. The 
property is improved with a three story brick apartament snd store 
wboilding. The complainant ie the mortgagee, and the defendants 
appesling held title to the premises by mesne conveyances from 
Richman, the mortgsgor. 

The bili recites thet defendant, Samuel J, “iehmen, on 
the 29th day of July, 1935, as evidence of on indebtedness of 
$150,000.00, executed a promiasory note payable te the compleinant, 
such note to bear interest at the rate of G)% per annum, psysble 
semi-annualiy on the 29th day of January and July of each succeeding 
yeer. it is siso provided that periodical installments of $7,500.00 
each should be paid on the principal in 18, 30, 42, 54, 66, 78, 

90, 102 and 114 months after the date of the note. The dill further 
recites thet on the date of the note, to seoure its payment, defend- 
ant, Hichnen, conveyed the premises described in the bill, 

together with the rents, iseues and profits thereon, to the 
complainant for the uses and purposes deseribed in the mortgage deed, 
and subject to certsin conditions of defexeance in the mortgage; 


— 
ec aa 
| — 
Pa ee Ses 


wo Yano soNasueRE aarmeacun: 
| ghGhtoregtet «© ,AG1k 


=\" svaliogga — 
* 





& YROTOOOLA Tas 


— — ete — 
gk ee: — at — 
‘4 (etantaat 0G) : A 


TNOD “ete eda | 


sxtauo0 jhe 


we, Ke —— * 


* oy Ae 





BED, MI ors | 


— cs i 





— 5 bie “he hs dal 





ser es dots bell? noiaiqo Boag me 
“Sesuod fey 10 wolere) tay cterv rae saaw wore | 
* palit Go webte te sevt” * — — as ce * —— 


Sh 


we ik i 








edt  .fikd edd ak beciveesh ‘ehetew feet no payed ere 










orote bie twentvaqe xolns wrote ands a tthe 7 ve — — err 
Stantadtel- elf? bas ,otgegtsde ode af dacabslqudd bit 
mort — sane w — ‘ae 3 biéhd Bie 


«le dled ae. ———— © — ios Like Sat 
te dasabei¢etct ae to senabave “a Hor vel tS wb 
— ———— a 
_— alidatyaq sauate 199 Ade te bier sad da ghsredal” tne sid 8 hed fo 
pilbsesous ose Yo Yio’ ban Yroumet to yah Mies edd ap YLtauniimbabs 
06.008, 7) te ataontiatent Eaoibotroq teds bepivorg orks o et “Ree | 
eBT 42S be geh 40S , Bi ak fag omens adit a, — Sao on ° 
todtset Ltd edt tom ondt to stab od? costs ‘edison ALE bas 804 08 
chaste .taomyeq ett oxuoon of ,oton adit to eta este no fads — | 
giséd ont at badiveaed eovimorg owe beyerso0 atoastodt tus 
odd of noted? atttony has eouest .utuor edt tie celtoped — 

abood eapttom sft at bedireced ovedarog bas sou ode ot a: * 
——DDDDDD———— 












am 











a 

that the mortgege provides that the grantor will release all right 
of possession to'bhe premises descricved in case of default in any 
of the covenants of the mortgage, among them being an agreement to 
pay all general texes and special assessments levied against the 
property, and to keep the buiiding and fixtures thereon insured 
against loss or demage by fire. it is further slieged in the bill 
that defendants were in default in the payment of principal and 
interest, and for taxes and special assesssents Levied axgesinst the 
property, agreed to be paid by the mortg=gor wah paid ty complainant, 
in s sum totaling upwards of $130,999.00, and thet at the time of 
filing the bill, the fair and reasonable value of the mortgaged 
premises was 7190,000.00,. The bill is sworn to. 

On July 16th, 1932, the cause was referred to a iisster 
in Chancery to take testimony only with reference to the value of 
the premises and the gents, iseues and profits derived therefrom. 
Defendants, (appellants) by 2 sworn anaver filed subsequent to the 
reference, denied ali the allegstions in the bill except the execu- 
tion of the note and mortga;¢, which they neither admitted nor denied, 

On the 22nd day of September, 1932, the Haster to whom the 
Cause was referred filed his report by which it ie shown that testi- 
mony was teken before him on the question of the value of the mort- 
gaged premises, including proof of rentale said and the rental vaiue 
of the property, the kind and character of construction of the build- 
ing. Also evidence was received ag to the surroundings of said 
premises, and the character and kind ef transportation thereto. 
Witnesses were produced beth by complainant and defendants, 

On September 22nd, 1932, the Master reported that “from 
an @xamination of all the testimony of all the witnesses, the Master 
finds and concludes thst the present value of the premises described 
in the bill of complaint is the gum of $106,450.00." Extensive 





#igkt Lin semeiet Libs wdentg edt” talt senior agent ron 
Wie Mk tivated Yo v2.00 at bacsxoaed esakseny oMdiot notoeres 
ot tnoneetss as gated asd? goon —E — ons to admanoves ote te 
edt teniege betvel atvencsenee istoage dae noxat fenensy tin yeu 
botwuat sowtedd gerutest brs gi sbitud ede geet of hee .ytxeqorg 
[Ltd odd al begetis —R at # .oxtt wt eli ones * 
shee Leg tents to tasmyeq odd ai sinetoh ai axe ntmpbagted 
/ ext. —R re ia oae oror⸗ a toe han ague⸗ th * * 
simantaigeos y“binw ded topegtaom edt ys Biag od of boergs: serecese 
te akidh ont” 9A” btlty’ bia" DOLE oxse Xe abenvaw wliatet am 
bogugtton ole to outlay ‘sidenonaet ba ha oe : 










——— a of berrsten aaw — ode * ok die via, 

“te sitiwy add oe enaeroter —2 ean ' ae ne — 
Lmortersi? bevivad et fterg bas sovead ate oe * tne o 

od? 6% duoupesdya beltt rowens axowa r oe st te : a MD ate 89 
“years off tadoee Lite ant at avo ktagelts edt rts its beamed 39001 
sbotsed non bestinbs radtiex yodt doide ymiegiion ban e900 odd 2 mois 
eilt Mode of totwou edd Seer «codnotao te vet sues wie 0 , 
«ttest tnd? mwode ef ti doldw yW droqer wis beftt boxxete 
“teow edt to aulev edt Yo noddeeup ede fo abd oxored 5 avied now ynow 
egiev Letaor ott bas blag aladwox to Yoong wetbutond 
~hiiud si? to soLtourtaxoo te resosrade fe | batt sd? 
‘bhee Yo wgnktaversua add oF ba bovieoon as 
sotersae mole atroquaie? Yo ha 4 bas wedner. 
wracbasteb bite dunn tetqne peoubor 

wott" edd bédxoqes Yodan ‘ouié ites base ee aime: a0e ag 
uote edt sbdawantio edt ite ‘te woulsert edt is —* pe onten ai 

| _boatroees abalmoty ere ‘to euiew tasners utd beds —— 
wi | eviemeten abba Ciie bait tos axe a | sudeLquoe Yo ode wt 








— — a 



















eo ae —— aM 


3 
objections were presented to the Maeter's report, but were overruled, 
and the report was ordered filed. © © Exeeptions were presented to 
the trial court with the stipulation thet the objéetions filed before 
the Master should stand as exceptions to bis report. 

After a hesring, the court entered the following order: 


"This matter coming on to be heard upon the application 
of the complainant, by its solicitors, for the appointment 
ef a receiver for the premises deseribed in the bill ef com 
plieint «nd said matter having heretofore been referred to 
Master in Chancery Louis J. iehan, on a apeciel reference 
to ascertain and report the present value of and the rents 
derived from said property, and the court having received 
and considered said report and the exceptions and objections 
heretofore filed thereto by certein defendants, end the court 
having heard the arguments and stetexents of the solicitors 
for the complainant and said defendants, and being full 
advised in the premises, Doth Find that a receiver s a be 
yy pe eee for said ees, and it is therefore Ordered 

eo and Dee that the objections and exceptions to 
aaid Master's report be and the seme are hereby overruled; 
thet Logan fF. Wullins of Chicago be snd he is hereby eppointed 
reeeiver for seid premises deesribed with oli the usual 
and customary powers and authority of receivers in equity; 
that said receiver enter inte « bond with surety in the 
pensl sum of $15,000; that complainent sheli enter inte a 
@omplainant's bond in the cenai sum of @509; that the costs 
and fees of said Master in Ghancery in the sum of $182.50 
be and the same are hereby approved and taxed as costs to 
be onid by said defendants, to «hich order the defendants 
Ganiel @ Marke and Hescie Riehuan exeept.* 


One of the errors urged by appellants is that the court 
erred in neither approving the Master's report, nor making » find~- 
ing of fast on which to base ites order. We are of the opinion that, 
while informal, the order of the court meets the objection made 
by Gounsel, although it does not in terme approve the Master's report. 
The objection that there is no finding ef fact in the order is met 
by the rule etated by this court in Central Trust Go,, Vv. Hogurn, 

B87 Ill. app. 45, page 53, as foliows: 
evidense 1s preserved ta the recerd, the taste need not 


be found in the order or decree tut reference may be had 
to the evidence te accertein whether it sustains the 


order or decree, Ve Jeman, 291 lil. 543. It 
is certain that ng oy in the statute that 
prevents such reference," 


& 

sbeluxtevs ever dad ,froqget e'ustesé ac? of betaoserg aren aus iteopes 
ot Rofmsesre erew enottqoont al! sbeCht Souvexo ean proger edd Aas 
exoted BOLLT socttedtde odd todd avdtadugits of? dtde oxuen Aadtt odd 
| sttager eit oF —— ee 

telco gaivallet od? hevetee geueo at onan @ hie a es . 









aoidediigqn ed? woaw Prasd ea a ae 
fueatoiogge ait tot my yo noes 
open ‘te Likd of¢ a Bediutesh gee 


at bocreter need oxatotered an pad % tox oF yg 
sonevets A me Sait gived at 
 wteor et? bas to Gufs —— ott —— Date 






bevisoor gaivad tesco eft bas » ra 
Be ponder * — tg —* fae i 
Hos @ avazbhast | * 
——— — : 
od biveria isvieoss « Sadd ould « wt 
® angitqeonre Sas £ 
{Selutreve ydewed oxm emee dt bas od ; 


best: tat ban Oe SiG tw s 
— —— 


t baa de Ble Oe pat aa .. or 
——— aes — Pg ay ——— — hiss ye | = * 
* fqeore eace “eieaed ints @2% & — 


Pause odd tedt of etasliogge yd Sogey aveste oat ie. WE. iw avty 

mit EY 9 pele cet Vö 
bed? aolsion add Yo ors oF sheua wht gand of dotdy ae fost to. gat 
oham snottootds ety aveon tue ed? to xebue edt ,Lamroted elise 
droge: o'tetend of? evotqra aneed of tom #90 th dqwodsia ,ineuven ye 
fon ah tebe ort we tent Yo gather’ Ge ak oxedt sede aodtooide vat 
TE A LO ee ee 
tewoliet se 488 ogeq gh. ant AA THR 


on? ovedw gat ek Si is libtay 
* iy atount edz — ——— * a 
ad GOAGTSI OE iui sermel, ae ah 








All the evidence taken before the Master and inoluded in 
his report, is inciuded in and is a part of the record of the cause 
in this court. fhe question as to shether the court wes in error 
in taxing the costs as it did in the order appealed from, is not 
reviewable in this interloeutery appeal. That is a matter to be 
disposed of by the court in ite final deoree, 

"fhe appointment of a receiver is not the ultimate 

end and object of the suit, but is merely ancillayy there- 
to, and reste in the sound discretion of the court. In 
euch cases, appeliate courts will not interfere with the 


Gourse being pursued by the trial court, exeept where it 
is clear thet the justice of the cnse gequires ite! 


Soe, Ve Vandalia, 102 Ill. App. 





Pa sOUA 8 YEROS 2 £5 
362, page 365. 
After a enreful examination of the record, the court 
concludes thet the trial court did not exeeed its diseretion in 
appointing a receiver in this oase, and in that respect, the order 
is affirmed, 
AF VIMED, 


BILSON, F.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONGUR, 





— 


Fa 


Le ear het cond 


RARE 


hee ae ROE S 





Dah yt ep Ric 
— it A ite 








tn * 
ts Bee EE Hae — — DD———— editor 
F3 * = i Pe fis pee 5 —E—— hits oe 
i 4 é Ree Se Rae ORE SRE addins ihe eae 


shinee dot aC ee ee 4 all 


ER: jag) ANGE 6 pe aang 


* 
Bz 
oe. 
& 
> 
Et, § 
= 
ye 
— 
aoe. 
Pa 
2 
* 









EOE BY Ph sep * re hee +e 










nem. 4s ae bere ah: e ve 
oy * ae) saad Ce Se eae : 
a S« — Oe wae ae Bs an ‘il 





a — re 


Pe REE Ue Yi 





x 
= 


36117 
Lous emerge | Administrator of 


% 
th 








the Estate of Paul Selomon, APPRAL VR 
deceased, 
Appellant, 
CLACUIT COURT 
Ve 
GEORGE ¥. WEAD and the Weodlewn 
Trust and Savings Sank, « GOOK COUNTY. 
og — implended u 
e Re 2 9 Py £¥ ry { 
0 1.4.614 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

BR. JUETIOE HEBEL DELIVERED THE Orisdice OF THE oOuRT 
OR REAEARIMG. 

This cause is again before us on s rehearing granted, 
After further considerstion we adhere to the original opinion. 

The demurrer of the defendants to the original declar- 
ation, consisting of eight counts, and to the first, secend and 
third additional counts, ae amended, was gustsined, and the plaintiff 
elected to stend by his plesding. The cause vas thereupen diesissed 
by the court at plaintiff's coste. Upen apoesl of the claintiff 
the cas@ is now in the Appellate Court for review. 

The plaintiff slieges thet the defendante owned and 
operated an old abandoned stone quarry on land between Gist and 93rd 
atreets, ¢nst of Stony Islend Avenue, in a populous territory in 
the City of Chicago, in which water collected te = derth of about 
14 feet, and in which the defendants permitted, eneouraced end invited 
the genersl public to swim; and allowed end permitted abandoned aute- 
mobiles to be in exid water, forming « hidden trap and menace to 
life snd iiab of plaintiff's intestate and other «embers of the 
general sublic who might swim in esid pond or bedy of wetter; that 
phaintiff's intestate, 2 boy 16 years of age, and an excellent 
swimmer, on July 4, 1929, while swimming there, struck and came 








— Bid Say x pe oes — seo i 


ine — a me oe wines ink 0 eeun® pd > 
 eigtades dealgite aft of etedha ow modtershiocep 4 
—— doakging edt of adanbneiet oi. to. comune GET ey ohh 
bas bagorg, .e72% oft of bar atming sayae to yaks cranes uote 
itateiq edd bas ,biwistewe cow ghobeems en .utpwes ky Ba be —* it 
eveimath moguarsd? sew pao ed? .patbeola etd ys hate of J 
Na⸗ga kaſa od¢ to Losqa soqt eas attataindg ts dente | out we 
— .welvex tat ttuod ogelioaqa ad #2 won at ‘teen edt 
bae beowo sdaahasteh odd Gadd aegoiia x daoa ala act —— — 
ree has tale weseted baal ag yrtaep wets eoaotaaa⸗ no ae biatonsae 
Pes qrotivres avoloq # ak ,eutera bastes “eet ‘te tame 4 a ete 
teods to dtgsd s of betosiion tebae olde mt —— te a oat 












‘aae 3 te — —9 — 
tedt prsdew te Woe 6 


2 

in contact with hidden automobiles whieh were negligently allowed 
and permitted by the defendents to remmin in said water, and as a 
result thereof was rendered unconscious and was drowned. 

The original declaration eonsigte of eight counts, slieg- 
ing in part as follows: 

In the firet count it ie slieged that the defendants owed 
a duty to use care ani caution in keeping the premises in « safe 
sondition for anyone who was swimming, sii thet the defendants care- 
lessly and negligently permitted old euteomobiles to remain partly 
submerged in the weter. 

In the second count it is alleged thet it wee an attrae- 
tive muisence to children and othere who cared to ewia. 

In the third count the ellegatien ie against only one 
defendant, George ©. Wead, and sought to impose « duty on him to 
keep the cremises exfe for these who might want to swim, but that 
he did enrelesely permit it te remein in an unsafe condition on 
aceount of the submerged sbemdoned automobiles. 

The feurth count is the exme as the third, exeept that 
the slliegstions are made only against the defendant, Yeodleen Trust 
and Savings Sank, as trustee, 

The Tifth count ie slse similiar te the third, but the 
allegetion is oniy against the defendant H. # Mersh, 

In the sixth count oniy the defendont George #. Wend is 
named and therein he wes charged with the duty to keep the premises 
in a safe scomiition with due regard to the safety of the general 
public, but that he enxrelessly peruitted the submerged, sbendoned 
automobiles to remain therein, «ll of whieh formed an attractive 
Nuisance as to plaintiff's intestate and other children. 

The seventh and eighth counts are similar te the sixth 
eount, except that in the seventh count only the Woodlawn Trust é 
Sevénge Genk, « corporation, as trustee, wee nemed, and in the 


® 
how ila ylénegkisan wtew dod BOL isamodtue aebbisd atin testes nt 
¢ ta bon .x0tee Bowe at shower o? stapkaeten ode ed page hares fs 
ebenweth av bas ayoloaaeony borehaex aoe toorade humor 
geile ,etayed digin to aphtence wektoredoed Lantyize edt | 
J — CJ faq Eset = 
oro atunbwereh edd tent bageila af ts sont emt at ha | 
tee. awl aoakuore wad yadqoes at notes has oxo sae of ‘wee 
~st08 otankaetes ade one bus pains tee cow eile eno yar to? okt i bree 
————— — etaaantagea has ylawel 
ne ‘,tetee ot ah — 
~eartia ae sav th todd begelie ab 4 davse baopee oft ae —* 
| ae ot Sse wt emia sah 9 Smet et 
ond yew teokege af aeltegetio edt demon bende ot ah 
| Of mtd no Yheb ® seognt of Rigo baw Sent oF ee0 —— 
gait? ted yadwa of daar Otyha ony cvodt tet otes eoulente 
go moltMiseo tteedy as si sinwet oft: ane eiemetaene bh 08 
Aolitiometes Demotheds Degremuin eft to daweben 
fidt tqeox .S2lde odt as emia etd ah Sduse diuagt ese 
teurt aveiheot _sonabearon oae oen taga yin oboe ete asst myetie: edt 
| 3 soetoney we vitor * * 
gd tnd Would od GF n ede of dame MeRET eet): Os 
ive! GY OM dashaered one ten aon⸗ tino ee ot J : —* 
ai Saow sy @padeo Sdshnctes wat yino fewos Mme edo HE 
— ade qed of YiuP edt atte si ahh Stl 
| Eetsdog edt 20 yaOten edt Of bemgee aub ustw Aoktihnée stop oat 














beachad — ont — ⸗⸗ter⸗ ed oen tod yo Eek 









adt at das henna aew — sootound | co „ 


3 
eighth count, only the defendant H. W. tarsh. 

The allegations of the second sdditional first and 
second counts as amended are hereinafter fully set forthe 

In the seoond additional third count as amended it is 
alleged that the defendants wiilfully end wantonly neglected to 
clean out the pond or to feneoe it, and invited the public to swis 
therein, by reason whereof plaintiff's intestate was drowned, 

After the demurrer to the amended edditional counts was 
sustained, the defendants sought leave to withdraw their pleas to 
the original deciaration consisting of eight counte and file a 
demurrer thereto, to which motion pisintiff objected, because the 
statute of iimitetions had rum and the plaintiff would be prejudiced 
thereby. The motion was denied, 

Thereefter, on wareh 7, 1931, the defendants’ demurrer 
te the second anended sdditionsl three counts was heerd end sustaine 
ed, and thereupon the defendanta renewed their motion to withdraw 
their pleas to the original declarstion in order to demur therete, 
and the came wes granted. 

The plaintiff contends thet when the owner of private 
property has permitted ite use by the genersl public over « consider- 
able period of timc, and a considerable number of people have 
availed themselves of sush use, the owner of the real estate ores 
a duty of care for the safety of persons using said preperty under 
the existing custom; and thet, under the sliegstions of fact, the 
court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the declara- 
tion. 

The rule has been settled by the weight of authorities, 
and is announced in the ease of City of vekin v. Molishon, 154 Jil. 
i4i, as follows; 


“That the private owner or ocoupant of land is under no 
obligation te strangers to clece guards sround exoava- 






panes , text Lenoktthts nove oat —* Bao liagesd 
* toe vite ‘vetteatoret oie bohm ares 


_ oF Beteeigan uinotags baw Midot il by a” ote oF oe ; 
mle 0 oidug ot hegavaz tus tm gt —J fs * — at we s 
obama enw etetavtat errhzentalg & Toenede Roane 

anf naauoo, oaa tobe Aetapne ase ot soceuned oats * 


Ww yates * 


Spee we — 








tions upon his lend. The law does not require him te 
keep his premises in safe condition for the benefit of 
trespassers, or those whe come upon them without invita- 
tion either expreas or implied, and merely to seek their 
own pleasure or gratify their own ceriosity.*" 


However, an exception to this general rule is thet lisbility may 
resuit from a dungtrous condition of private property lying opposite 
a highway or frequented path, for public use, upon «hich the owner 
or occupant by invitation, either exvress or implied, induces 
others to come. The decisions are not entirely barmenious upon 
this question, but from 36 L. fi. Ae, page G86, it apcesre from the 
note of the author that the weight of authority is in favor of the 


feliowing: 


"The owner of private property is not obliged to make it 
safe for trespassers or even for mere licensees, If, 
however, the cireumsteness have been such ae to amount 

te a devotion of the property temporarily to the sublic 
vse, care must be taken not to make it unsafe until 
proper notice of the change has been given. Sothin 

whieh amounts te s trep ean be placed where the scublie hae 
been in the habit of resorting, end exeavations cannet 

be mede so near theiine of an existing highway as te 
render travel on the highwey unsafe." 


it ie aise announced as a rule by the Supreme Court of 
Tliineis in the osse of Tomle v. Hampton, 129 Iil. 3739, that 


*Hhere the owner of land invites the public to make use of 
it, by connecting it with a public sidewalk, he must 
exercise due care te keep the premises in - ressonably 
aafe tondition.* 


in Sennett ¥e Rpiliz oad Ge 
by the court, 


"That the owner or oecupant of land who, by invitstion, 
express or implied, induees or leads others to come upon 
his premises, for ry grate purpese, is liable in damages 
te them, they using esre, for injuries ccessioned by 
the unsafe condition of the land or ita approaches, if 
such condition was known to him and not to them, and was 
negligentiy suffered to exist, without timely netice te 
the public, or to those whe were likely te act upen such 
invitation. 


it is essential in order te recover in an action for 


Gamages thet the person injured ehkli sliese and prove that the 


102 U. 3. 577, it vase enid 





— 


te #ltened ode «ok goitibaoe elas Sa ae 

~atival tuectiv @eat soqu eno ony 
sheds. goon ef uierse bose ,bediqmk we por 

*.ttheodayo — *ode —— xe ——— — 

eo ytiiadets Sank ed edere Levoney wade of abꝛ tarex⸗ orenon 

—R — ——— aan tea to ao id tba. —2— * mora’ ented 

xomwo ext doide sees Gan ottdua ‘got aitaq betnoupest or) wondgts a 

seoubns abd ient 5 enargne ‘nedtéts noktativat w tanquace * 

“sis auotnomtad qforitis fost ots anv tezoss ‘ont “2800 oe atedgo 

‘ads moet — $e 1308 we ook of ot 88 wont tod notte ott 


edt to worst af at Vian ‘te #ytow aus tnat rodius a9 te 980m 












ad ae ot bntide fue oh wrincots ote i ca ‘ 
ak 8 ® ta eers tel fie 
tasown os ee dou ased evad wsenaveuyerio vis gt ree 
skidua edt et ylitateqaet ytatyenq ed¢ to aostore® 2 et 
—— — om —— aA “@ 

Phi d D4 egaade ee 

HE ent exedy on a0 Gate « * a Seer 

tonnes saoiteranxe gn itcaess to § Olt sh Ks 

« aa — yaiteix> ge te *8* tees Rd hem vd 

+ sows Cemigin ait ae + Oe: a 


‘to tuped ecengst edt yi aien « ea. beorenne o@he ae @ ; —— 
@adt yxc A Es I ad — stones 
to eer atem of ofiduy ett aettent duet beter 


geum od ,tiawehie eilduq e déiw $2 gu ites 
— 4 ak eeghwery ott qoed at * ins — 











— besa Ye tances to seas ele eae ihe 
 aiqts MmaD OF —— To spouted 55 — — 


wy ,aedosousn ot — eat yee te east : 3 
waw bus ,modt oF ton hac wid of hen 
of solves yisal? dwodten Lye p More ew yite 
foun aoqu fon ae Wiener ose gale — ae é. 








& Ree wee 


5 

iandowner invited the publio either in expreas terms or by implice- 
tion, to use the iand as o pathway er for amusement purposes. The 
owner cannot knowingly permit » trap upon the land which may cause 
injury, without warning the publie of the danger. Failing to do so, 
the owner may be liable to # parson rightfuliy upon the premises, who, 
in the exercise of due care, was injured as «a result of a trap 
maintained or permitted upen the land by the owner. However, there 
are Gagés where the owner may be liable even to a trespaeser or 
Licenses for injuries caused by wanton or wilfwli sete in setting 
spring trape or instruments of destruction on his lend for defense 
of his property without notice of such contrivences. The question 
is, is an owner guilty of negligence in failing to sreet » fence 
which is required by a city ordinance sround » large hole or pit, 
20 as to prevent injuries to cereons who are on the land by invitn- 
tion, expressed or implied, themselves using due cere. The general 
Tule is that «a vielation of 5 satetute is prime faoie evidence of 
negligence. This is also true aa to the vielation of 2 city ordin- 
ance, where the ordinance is gueh as the city is authorized by its 
oharter, or by statute, to anke. In Ghannende, v. Yobm, 19 Lil. 
28, it was held in an action by an employee for injuries received 
from fniling down an open eievator shaft, proof of the defendant's« 
Violation of « oity ordinance requiring all sersons controlling 
passenger or freight elevators in buiidings to employ seme person 
te teke charge of and operate the saae, constitutes a prime facie 
esse of negligence, if suoh violation caused or contributed to the 
injury. fhe nonperformanece of this duty imposed by statute or 
ordinance is a breach of duty to the public, «nd therefore evidence 
of negligence and linbiiity if the injuries were the result of such 
violation of duty. it has been suggested in this onase that the 
failure of an owner to enclose a pit or exenvation by o fence is 
not the proximate cause that resulted in injury to the person on 


a 
~sokiga yo vated eaergxe ta seusie baddies ode hodbvel ‘ennobnad 
eat eoso0ttwy tuneseume tot to ons, Be Boek ont ea Ot gteke —— 
guuee Yau dolde Baal off goqy dete e jtereg. —E Sanias temwe 
soa ob ot —R stagnab add 26 thidyy hels galiraw tupdtiw: Xxxun ann 
dw yaselaene ade noys Ylvtidyes newwee 408 Me orcrunm/ aulg 
— “gett a to tianes « oo betwiat oow ,orew wah Ye Ba ave aol r 34 
weeds Ade vvon tadwe edt vi bret en? ney Beebe’ 
te xenaequerd e ot neve oldntt ad ere one ferns rere oe 
“yaddone ay pier Ilutity 10 notitew Yd detuss porte vot seas 
erasteh dot Snef alt ab svttowkteeb "to wtnsmurbeit Yo aimed galt 
no t#eaup at? .esewevictasc dows to sation twedtiw yresqieg 
sonst | a thane of pukiia® ef sonogt aan * —— arse J— at «at 
stig <0 siod aysel @ Bayete somendbes tty be ae i 
sativa w bot ent a oth orto seo Thy @ 4 
Losens ar vera * chase workmen — * 














s*tashast ob ede to — ol — Bitte» “ — mort 
“gakiioutaee attestes Le géiekupes stacks Yio o te aottstely 
aoerea Onan — ot — at — aig komt so acua⸗· v ft 














ode 0 boeiaairabe + ro bai — — E ‘tire u ye nigtigon % 
+2 vsn 6 beeound * eas te Ags : 


ek eonet & WW sutteveexs ro #hy 9 WRiede OF teneo ae to wReEiet 
90 mown add of yrutat mt hettvner ted Gnuxo vtamixory edt toa 


6 

the land. if the injury is the result of the injured party's own 
negiigence, failure to erect the fence neceassriiy would not be the 
proximate caust of the injury. thether or not the absence of a 
fence constitutes negligence was for the jury, wader all the facts 
and clreumsteances in evidence, 

It appeara from the pleadings of the plaintiff in the 
second additional first count ss amended that the defendents owned, 
operated and controliied the premises ioenated in a populous section 
ef the Gity of Chicago, on Steny Island Avenue at 92rd Street; that 
within 50 feet of the cement driveway and walk on Stony Island 
Avenue, ond within 3 feet cf 93rd street, there wae kept and main- 
tained a body of watery es a public swimming place, used deily by 
many p@eple and open to the oublic use. No fence was erected sround 
gaid body of water and no signa of warning were nesr said pond te 
tell of its great depth or te tell of its hidden dengers; thet the 
pond was used as 2 dumping place for abandoned automobiles, which 
endangered the iivea of people swieming there; thet there wae slso 
permitted in the water = stone slide, which wae used for many years 
by the Stony island Quarry, and which was s meneee to the public 
using said water as « swimaing pince; that the defendants maintoined 
the awimuing place openly over « period from Merch 19, 1925 to 
duly 4, 1929, and were gontinucusly warned and admonished by the 
Gity of Ghicage suthorities te fenee esid pond in cemplianee with 
& certain Gity ordinance, or te clear out of the pond the sbandoned 
automobiles snd heavy objects slbowed by the defendants to fleat 
in the water; thet the defendants ignored said werning, and made 
mo attempt to make the premises safe, although they were informed 
by the City suthorities ami citisena whe lived in the neighberheod 
that there were aany persons drowned there by reason of being 
struck by the «articles floating in the weter; thet they did not 
make any attempt to prevent or prohibit ewimming, or to make the 


o 
a6 ehytteg, borgiat oft Yo tunes. aad ek youre eat RL leak, elt 
ody of ton bivew (Lirsevooen, sanet odd goNee OF, orudisr. a ORIEL 
‘ te sonoeds edd Foe te rods any o Wty gad ote ke aruen OF LBS 
atest od fis robes .¢tul ode tol aay eomead gem sntua tose oan 
—* BL thitatale oat te — ext —J —R — Ka a 
bunac siasdosieh odd Jodt bubsere as tavoe eens Auntie ba eeR 
ao btoee eve Lugeg 8 ad batmogd avedmars ad? beligudsan haw betas eqe: 
fede jdvenea brie ts sumers ineiel yaota ao .oganls? to ash edt ae 
banint Wort so dew bre youmeteh stammee O6e ‘te. net 98 a ——0— — 
—— bats tga eow erode atOOtde bate. * * — BASS he gre, 
Wi Xfiab boas nals gainaion obidag « a9 conten to, bed — box . | 
Savors betoors vo vane} oH shaw otidua oh, 8 nee ew —* 

























ols new , wrade dade — sill os 20. —ñ— ine 
araox Wes ret hom enw sosde gobele enute w sates edt au basetoncee: 


okiding edt ot oponea — een dada ae —⸗ — —* nat 
bontadaten stnabaet ee ons todd isonlg jai hence ke 















benobaade ——— 
“aod pent etter anne 


"beaut ore Neat — peg ve -" i ror a sees ite ‘om 
heotedta on edt, ah Reel a angie aan wal prod ia hie ot 

guted to mpaacr YW oxeit banagrh anon : 
tom Bkb vad, posit, izaden odt mb — 


alas ot xo, waittomne. tidkdery — snore ae * ee ie 








7 

place free from hidden dangers, but allowed and impliedly invited 
the public to ewim in said pond; thet the plaintiff's intestate 
was « boy of the age of 16 yenra; that he entered the water and 
started to ewim when his heed was struck by «2 sunken autemebile or 
heavy objeot; that his head was badly bruised, and he sank and 
was drowned, 

The second edditionel count es amended, in addition to 
certain silegstiona of fact, sileged the vicletion of » certain 
ordinance by the defendents in fxiling te fenee seid wand; that 
they permitted the slay hole or exeavetion te be kept open and 
exposed to the use of the general publie for awimming pursoses; 
that the slaintiff*s intest«te entered ween seid real eatete and 
pond without being in any way warned, and wee struck by « hidden 
object, rendered unconscious and was drewned. fhe ordinandée is 
as follows: 

"Clisy holes and exenvations, The owner, i¢ssee or person 
in possession of any real estate within the city _ 
which are located or situated any clay holes er ether 
similar exeavations, is hereby required te cause such clay 
helea or other excavationa te be enclesed with wooden or 
wire fenees of not less than six feet in — when suodh 
fences are of wire, only smooth or not bar wire shell be 
used, and such fenoe or fences shail congitea of not lese than 
eight rows of wire, and such of wire shali not be swore than 
nine inches apart. Any person violating any of the pre- 
Visions of this section shall be fined not more then tro 
hundeed doliare for each of fense." 

The plaintiff in thie count siso alleged that the 
defendants were warned anny times by the City suthorities te fence 
the clay hole, but ignored the warnings, and encouraged and invited 
ite use, skthough they knew thet many were killed there ae « result 
of the dangerous condition of the pond. fhere ig aleo the allegation 
of the exercise of due care and caution by the plaintiff's intestate, 


it is te be noted that the defendant's demurrer sdmits 


faots well pieaded, and edmite that they knew of the setual condition 


‘ 
beotons ibeiiquk bus bowoiie tue —— 
otstecdut e*titaiela ‘ad? gods pbaoq biee at abes og 0b | 

Same x9tew eit hexedae of sade janowy OL to ene wath ria 
to eiidemetu« medave s YW dowten eow hood add ode mbwe oF bedeode 
bas dave ot has .beeiond yhed eow boas aid — ifoetde yas: 














* aeltihbea as beeen Be — Lame — ba os⸗ ser es ace 
ses OTA = . * 
tad joao "phen opaet of gatitet i eal ee bi cs 
Bae moze tas⸗ od ad rolteveexe co afed yeld ode ‘ainda 
3 _ peemoq mT gitinn tee go? odsetucs Laxeneg ‘clk tote aa on we 
, bas atatne Lest bhse soc Devotee otedaotad ‘pth — wi st 
i wobdid a “ fount asw bin sdoatas wes we if ane — — , 
: et sonan ahro ode -bemeott sew is ee A— 
















— of bexiupee Wared Ob — 
ane — — —— od oF melt | — bags — 


weg ed? ta —* gai tale Gah... 3 MORE OBER» 
ext * ote ton bead? * — —— 
of fede begelia code tamon ease aa ——— ith —— 
 eomet of eeitizedias 4t10 ede w eemit ————— 
betivak Bae Segetvocas. bus ,apedmtew ost Rosomyi. good ake a8 
¢lueet s as oxedy heligd exow yumm tee wend yods dguos 
— — —B——— OT IRS ES 
utimhe rertessb s*tantanieb 06h 40s Paige —8 i. mH el 
—— —— SO 


get HP RS Neb cy 


Stas: =e 









Bi piied ae a ey rr” vel au te 


8 
of the premises in whioh was included the swimming hole; indeed, 


admits that they were warned by the City suthorities and citizens 
of the neighborhood thet swimeing there wes dangerous becanse of 
the hidden dangers in the water, but feiled to take steps to fence 
the excavation required by the Ghieage erdinance, 

It is alse sdmitted by the demurrer thet the defendants 
have sllowed, encouraged and invited the public te swim in the pond 
on their premises, This invitation to use the premises for cwimming 
indueed the plaintiff's inteatate to come upon the premises for « 
lawful purpose, and while on the oremises end in the water the 
Plaintiff was injured, which injury resulted in h§s death through 
no fault of his own. Under this state of the pleadings, the plaintiff 
gan maintain an action for the death of hie intestate oseasioned by 
the unesfe condition of the lend. Thia condition wae known to the 
defendsnts and not te the desexsed, and they negligentiy suffered it 
to exist, witheut any notice to him, shen he took advantage of the 
defendants" invitation to swim. the failure to erect 2 fence is net 
conclusive of licbility, but thie breach of duty will be evidence 
of negligence. fo erect 2 fence is » duty imposed by the City 
Ordinance, end failure of the defendants to do so, as alleged,in 
a breach of this duty to the public ead evidence of negligence for 
which the defendants sre ilieble if the injuries ceusing the death 
of plaintiff's intestate were, in 2 substantial sense, the result 
of suth violation of duty. If « fence had been built enclosing the 
pond, am required by the ordinanes, we cannot assume thet this boy 
would have climbed over the fenee te co in swiowing. 

Plaintiffe contend thet it was an ebuse of diseretion 
for the court to allow the defendents to withdraw their several 
pleas to the original declaration after the expiretion of the 


statutory period of Limitation. However, the defendants’ srguvent 


— 


sboebal 4eted Hidemders ot behatons ast doida at eentnery am. an 
enouttts aes sodtitodiun io ots * demter expe weed onde tea 
to onsaoed —R Ce oxould gainakwe sant oe dade i 
eons? * aqots edet oF better dunt stetse ede as wigan — J 
—BR oae otad ont yd bontenen, was * 
stanbusteb odd stadt reremoh edt yd bettiahs ote et $1 — 
haog edt mi wiwe of Oo: iivg edt betival bas begetwoons — ovad 
—R ok ssetnorg oat oa ot moatedtvat ata? — — 


a tot — Aete⸗·⸗ co * 9 ” 















* 











wi basotaeoos ‘gendoora ea te teen ea? — 
add * wont eon woe tcuoe saat baat | x 
th J oft o⸗ to 
ons Ye eystnavin soot od aaity yotd of 90] nt Yet 
fon wk eamak 2 teers of suukted BAT ‘mabe 
sousnive: od | Lb * * Weer⸗ * * 


9 
in reply to this contertion is that the fule has been changed by the 


amendment to Section 39 of the Preotice Act, Cxhili's St. ch. 110, 
which permits amendzent te = declarsetion after the limitetion period 
has expired, even though the decinretion etstez no cause of notion. 
This court in ite opinion in the cast of Zister v. 
Foilsck, 262 lil. App. 170, in sonetruing this section ef the sot, 


enid: 

"It will be noted that the emendaent provides that 
where any pleading is awended, the amendwent ‘shail be heid 
te relate back to the date of the filing of the original 
pleading * * * and the cause of setion * * * set up in the 
amended pleading shell not be barred by * * * lepse of time 
under any statute preseribing or limiting the time within 
which an action may be brought * * * if the time prescribed 
or limited had not expired when the original pleading was 
filed, and if it shali apyesr from the original and amended 
pleading that the cause of action asserted * * * in the amended 
pieading grew cut of the same tranasction or oocurrence, and 
is substantially the came as set up in the original plending, 
even though the original plesding was defeetive in that it 
failed to sliege the performance of some act or the existence 
of some fact,° “ 

in the instant cas@y if we assume that the original 
declaration did not state = cause of action beceuse it failed 
to specifically allege the dste of the death of the deceased, 
so that it did not appear that the suit was brought within 
a year after the death of Anthony MH. Zister, yet we are of 
the opinion that this defect might be cured after the 
expiration of one year by virtue of this smendmant. At most, 
the original declaration wea defective, in that it failed 

to allege ‘the existence of some fact,’ viz; the date of the 
denth of the decezsed. it is obvious that the ‘esuse of 
action asserted in the amended declarstion grew out of the 
semé transaction or occurrence and ig substantisily the same 
as set up in the original plesding.'* 


The plaintiff's eontention that the court should net have 
permitted the defendants to withdraw their pliers and file « demurrer 
after the statute of limitations bad run, was undoubtedly right 
before Section 39 ef the Practice Act was amended, The amendment to 
Section 39 affords an opvortunity to the plaintiff to file ean 
amendment te the declaration, notwithstanding the limitation period 
had expired; provided that the cause of section asserted in the amend- 
ment grew out of the ssme transaction or occurrence as set up in the 
original pleading. for the reason indicated, we are of the opinion 





thik demerit, nati. dak ak wtb tata at nottaetaee nat ot Umer a 
aOLl sd 082 etLiidad toh oo te vara ede to ee woktoae ot ‘tueshaens 
betzeq aoltstints dt xotts xolteiaioed = o@ trevinens abhereg ‘dotde 
etoltes Yo waeno Ox BO2688 as ltgeel eek add — cows bortase ane 
V_metess To cea add mh solaiqa avt ak suas aid? i i 

avon of? To ag téoos wide giiurtedes ai ort — at oo —— 









ee. 


ede at ge: 

att to face — 
midtixn ants odd 

bedixoasrg emi? edt FL * 


| Lead wg Hg edd a qu de maa, age 
aay tedé at —2 ete gaibeets . 
 eeneteize ed? se tos mon To Seasmrotreg 


Lasigiae edt jedi 7* oy 2b no 
heLlet 24 sausesd aoites seuse & etete te 
goeeneneh sig Fa * ef? he otek on? 

ep giv ow ton ate? Bh ‘wand ian to. A 

ate ae £2 
eds 4J — — — ol 


* ——— — ra 
pe POM ROS 
@men edt i aa al hex Sacerreote we Fags ee lel 
. “tagatheaig Lautatve edt ai qu fon on 
av⸗d tom biuoda too adt tedt aotdassaon atitAtatel ont aes es i 
aarranas a S427 fas aneig Tiedt waxhdtte of atanhasteh att beg ttm 
eczin VLbetiwobag ey gst bed ouoktnd intl Yo otutete one wots 
ot taemdroms oft sbobuean Bey #0h OOkteANY adt Yo OE wolsoel oxoted 
mise @S.2% of Vittniela sit of Yttmurtocge as ebotta CE medtoee 
hetreg sodtatimal edt gaibastedtinios ao ad ara lanb one of trembaons 
~haone of? af betueaes molten to eauae oft tone bobsvong jbontexe bod 
oft ak a #98 20 eomertutee to aoltenenent enna eit Yo tue very fom 


wokaice o4¢ Yo wa ee ,heteothal mosaee add ol sam 








190 
that the court properly entered the order, 

While the order of the court sustained the demurrer to 
the declaration, it does not appear from the record that a demurrer 
was filed by the defendants, in compliance with leave granted by 
the court, or that the plisintiff objected upon that ground. The 
court will, therefore, consider the questions before us ae if 
raised by « demurrer properly filed. However, for the reasens set 
forth in this opinion we have reached the conclusion that the trie] 
eourt erred in sustaining the demurrer to the second additional 
firat and second counts sa amended, therefore, the judgment is 
reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the court set 
aside the jwigment of dismiesal and held for nought the order sus- 
taining the defendants! demrrer to the second additionsl first 
end second counts es amended; that the trial court direst the 
defendants to plead to esid counts within such tim as may be fixed 
by the court, end enter such further ond other orders consistent 
with the views expressed in this opinion. 

REVESSED AnD REMANDEG WITH OIRECTIONS,. 


WILSON, Po J. SPECIALLY Coucuns, 
HALL, J. DLO NOT PARTICIPATE, 


BR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILGOR SPECIALLY CONCURRING: 

I agree with the opiniones above written and concur 
therein. I have oonsidernble doubt, hewever, as to the applicability 
of the ordinance ae pleaded in the second additional count as 
amended. 


OL 

et abse one beretae ehroqory hévuaat ade test 

oF textumeh edt beatndowe tives odd te tabt0 ene etide io — , ts 

necryeod ie dace Beeoax dat sors, —E ton aso * ootteresoeb oe 

qd beiaet, eveel Atin pan tlgnen as vetnataete elt rc eed ase 

ed? shnwetg dott soqgy boteatde viadudada ond tate te hew08 ant 

"Yh ae aw eroted anoiteaup ond tebleoe worotereds pile — 

ged aueenor He we (xovenoll .beLlt yUveqow, xevemesd « W boaters | 

feist add tadt selewionoe addt —— rset oe nodniye Reet a savor 
Keno it2bbs hagooe odd oF woritimeb aa gelatstove et donne 2 

dk dotmphut 64# yoroteteds .hebaexe an ssmaee basoee ha ¢ foun 

yea — add teds — atin atresia eever a, 











As oi ud pp sree: = ty 

* ee ii aise Ne Aa 

de Spat, tas eles Be 
iy * — 

ality — eee 


— ebony ey ee iain 





au Wanting ret ; fe wn: » 4 ae x af 
- aAnwre Se ci * 28 4 wont, etm 
i Ree kia at aS At * — ey < * ands banks, —2 — 





Qo. M. KABLE, 


: on ul F Pad 
ft JJ 
i 
35890 | fj ¢ 





Appellent ! 
’ CIRCUIT COURT 


We 
CAMERON CAN MACHINERY O0,., a GOOK SOUNTY,. — 
sorporetion nig Rae eae ue eee? d 
J 270 1.A.614 
Appellee. ; m O10 X 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 


WR. JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE OPLRIGN OF THE GoURT. 

This appesl to the Appeliate Gourt is by the complainant 
from « deoree entered by the Chancelior upon » Master's report, in 
which decree the court found that there is due the complainant the 
sum of $930.39, after sustsining certain exceptions te the Master's 
report. 

The decree is based upon the complainant's bill for an 
accounting as to the amount due under the provisions of a contract 
between the complainant and the defendant, bearing date November 2, 
1921, and providing that the complainant was te receive commissions 
for the sale of the products of the defendant in the Far Cast. 

The pertinent provisions becring upon the cuestione before 
this court are es follows: 


*(4) The manufacturer wlll make quoetstions to the agent 
at me pees price list, and it ia underetood that the 

~ eo receive « further discount from these quotsticns 
of 10% and 10% on all goods ordered by the agent or the 
agent's ciiente.* 


*(6) as the sanufecturer already has certain customers both 
in Chins end Japen, and hes also export houses in Lendoen and 
Rew York who are purchas their Gan making machinery from 
the sanufacturer and shipping the same into and within the 
territory referred to in thie contract, it is not intended 
that this agreement shall in any wey affeot the relations now 
existing between the aanufseturer and bis customers.* 


"(7) However, the manufacturer ¢ and hereby » ee 

to compensate the agent on such direct business with a com 

mission of 10% on any sales made vith the present customers 

of sxid wanufacturer, above mentioned, having branch offices 

—— in Hew York, Londen, cr in the above mentioned terri- 
Orye 


| ee 
Fs MOAR, 
| “it Tivoat® 


~ gee e¥aOD 090 is 
S10 ATO ¥S. 


SEgel {C8 dite SELLY nolaiqe® “eee WO Yo. oem te 





Time MNT tO WOTKIGO Mar CaTtviset Saate orto ” 
‘tnenteiqnoo odt yd af txvod etalleqga odd of Theyis eae” 
at — ——— cy Stee a we nachgns sexed 

at ethan ci of — — in 


eee ay 
Ba era, 














ap ot tiie a! tnanka Lome 2 ost nogu — — hen seit eae: 
“Poertios até ettoketverg — ‘auth — * aC 
8 Totimeved odd guitned ,tmebs , ‘ial ical 


eaoicelewos wioowe ot easy om * TT ee a ee ee 














_ saegs odd ob eto ttesoup. stom Sity 
edt tad? hooter —*— a —— Fe. 
_ wi htetorp sees? 

adt so * 


24 Yronidonsg 
ont —* bas otnt omee — * 3 
bebasént toc el ti — ? 

woul saottaion act footie yew wis ms Liede 2 
*,etenetav® gic Dna 


asainotg YWered bas o 
“moo a dtiw neaninud 


ssoitto doagid — : oan: 
taxed reer ae ah x0 


fhe complainant in his brief frankly sdmite that the 
questions thet arise sare principally questions of facet whieh necess- 
arily involve the eredibiiity of the witnesses ond the weight of the 
evidence, but questions the correctness of the conclusion reagehed 
by the court. 

One of the points ande by the compiainant is that a contract 
whioh has been reduced to writing cannot be added te or varied by 
parol or extrinsic evidence, and thet said rule was violeted by the 
admission of certein evidence by the court. Thie rule is se well 
established that citetion of suthorities is hardly deemed necessary, 
AR @Xamineation of the sppeliant's brief dees not disclose in what 
particular the court viointed the rule centended for in considering 
the evidence, 

The complainant contends thet the evidence in the instant 
case warranted » finding by the Ghaneellor thet a larger emount is 
due the compisinant for commissions then the amount allowed in the 
decres. 

in the Tem Kah Kee & Co., Singavore, & 3. atoount there 
is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the ececount was that 
of an old customer or of a customer produced through the efforts of 
the complainant. if this customer was produced by the complainant 
he would be entitled to a further 10% commiesion, as provided for 
by Paragraph 4 of the contract, From an examination of the record 
we are satisfied that the Ghaneeller did not err in sustaining the 
defendant's exceptions te the Haster's finding, and that the 
Ghanceliersbon®lusion was not against the weight of the evidenee, 

in the Chep Tye Sin Pineapple factory, Singapore, &. 9. 
aecount, it spears from the record that commissions were paid to 
the complainant exeept as to certain money received by the defendant 
on this sceount since the coumencement of the suit, and which sum 
is ineluded in the decree, 


odd tad¢ atimd: yitewst teked eid ws teeniaiqaen ott 
-getees doidw test to enotteeup yilaqiontey ete Sedna toslt —— 
ed te tigiew oft Bar eoenentin o6f te Yshiidiveye sit eviovnt * 
Reilonst ao den lonos od? te sueatoerros odt enoitetep tal ,eonebive 
: atena® odd “ 

eaxtnoe # Sed, ok tnaghascnem 94h. Riaban statog ost te ead 
(Yo Reisev so of Rebbe od toga gaktita of hoouher meni eat doide 
add yt be¢aiciv aaw elux Bice tec? fan ,oonebive Siaaivéne te ietec 
iiez om ai oivs eid? .tuvon od? yt sonektyve akedreo to goteuiahe 
eYreeneoen bemeeb yibuad ef eeitizodéue to Robsetio tait bast hidose 
tede wf egologih toa week helsd e'dusiiogge edd * aa ethene | "| 

— gent the lt Satelite a 

ne edt siz qnenbien one, — —— 4: satan —— 
ot geaenuna xoytel a tact rolleouens edé yd guibodd a & fe 
it at bevelia savons ed? mad? anotertmme xot én 


















ered? tavoone .& 48 ,exegenal® 4.00.8 aaa igh, wet ott ah 

| tant aon favonos odd xodtady of as songhive odt at fnbshago 2 ef 
te atrette edt dguonds beewhong Traoinve, #99, te remanee Abeta te 
teanteiquos edt qi heaubotg sew Tomptaye windy T)  .depetky ade 
et Bebivety «8 yrotesinana SCL redeut w ot wf blvew 9 
ixooes ai¢ to soltnatmexe aa gor | —9 — IS ret : 

odd petnnenene. od axe fom bid teiive MY Godt hefteliae 
“ods tnt tae cyutbrt otredienit eit of anottquen * in 

—— ont ‘to tdgtow edd Senior, For way * Loved wet. 










taghscorad ott Pit hovisees — — — * 1 elie qoone 
tae dotdw bas tho od Yo snexeanemnos one vente » taseons shite ‘ 





The complainant contends thet the amount of the order 
was to be the basis upon which the commission was to be computed, 
and that the amount found to be due is erroneous, The Usster found 
that under the terme of the contract the commiszions were te be 
@omputed upen goods ourchssed and reeeived by the customer. This 
ie a rénsonsble construction of the contract, and such construction 
is supported by the use of such words as “sales made,". and * purchasing 
their can making machinery." These terms mean that the complainant 
would be entitled to commissions oniy on ssles made to purehasers 
of “oan making machinery," a product of the defendant. 

The next contention urged by the complainent is that under 
the terms of the contract he is entitled to an additional 10% 
Commission on this secount, it being 2 new one. the cowplisinant 
aecepted the 10% commission, which, from the evidence, seems to have 
been received by him without complaint until « shert time before the 
filing of hie bili. The Mester’s finding is supported by the evi- 
dence, and his finding was approved by the decree of the Chancellor, 
whe paased upon the question, and it does not appear from the fsets 
that the finding was erroneous. 

in the Morinaga Confectionery Co. Ltd. acoount the finding 
ef the Usster wae approved by the Chancellor, ond, from the record, 
it does not sppear that his conclusion was objected te by the com 
plainant, or thet an exception was preserved, Therefore the cuestion 
raised upon this account is not properly before this court. fhe 
rule is that in order te question the correctness of the M-ster's 
finding, an objection must be made to such finding before the Master, 
and if overruled, then an exception must be token before the court. 
The complainant having failed to oomply with thie rule, the ouestion 
is not properly before thie court. 

#e also find from an examination of the record that there 


tebro adit to tavomn edt tett abmotnoo taenielqano eff | 
~betuqmbs 6d oF ew sotaeiagwn odd foide miow aieed of9 e6 of aaw 
beret tetesk off .evogmerts af exb od of dawot damewn ods eee beta 
ad oF Stow eaoteatames od? toextiod oat to waael cif Sebaw teMy 
aif? ,remetewn ode vd bewieoer hae beardoter eheog nota Beeuquee 
aorteurdanos dewe bas atoordaoe of to acltouttesos eidkeoaner & GR 
rinotorag hes ote ot iee't encadizes dove to cad oct qo babrogque a2 
teanieigqnos ett gad? saew eatetd seadt “ yreactdoew geikdey geo Teedt 
 axtesdoewg of shen relee oo Ylae exoivedumes of beietens e¢ Siwow 
i -tanbaeteb of? ‘to teubond a "yreciionn yaktam mae” Xo 
rebaw fedd ef tasaleiamoe edt yd begte sobneesaoo txen odf ae 
Si Lawolsibis ae oF pato aas· ai a SonnImen e4 he·eon · · aM 
‘Pimatquoo edt aco we — gated $f .dmweKOR GAIT ao otead Ep 
eved 04 ence .souebive ods aott qioidw ,weicaiames @0L one —— 
ot oroliod emit tote # Litaw tuleiqnoe tuodtiy mkt qi Doyines: mood 
wives of9 ye boftocqve ei yakbns? o'totest edt Ltd ald te gabe 
<rellodnedt? sft Yo serdeh ode w baventes aaw gathewt ert time \oomel 
EAA A ON FOR OO eee ee ra 
eer edt mowk boa antici ait yd Bavengas tt? eet 3 
amet add yo ot porootde pie nolertonoe init tut: neigh tae e ob a 
aolteeup of? etateced? ,hevresery sew a0, so brane 
ett tube Wie Whntind ele malar ntalae 
a'xovec’ eff Yo eeantoern0o att moktetep of thee * — — 
.tetesk edt exoted geiselt dows of Ohem oo tome wObteetde mk yyitl 
.drtvoo Sid stotod sale? of Tau mOLeqenKs me mene .balrerero 
—— — 9 — —— 
hae, hi Arbos eldt oxotod yoreyene som tl 
ered? Gadd bronsr wilt to — baat oF wet 







































mies teseied: weds wer par 


4 
is no dissute as to the Miteui & Company account. It is admitted 
by the defendant that through an oversight the complainant wae not 
eredited with cert«in commissions on this account, and that the 
eame are due. That the amount so Po — in the deeree. This 
also applies to the Chins Unnning Go. 

The only other ites compiained of is thet of the Tupmen- 
Thurlow ¢o., and the complainant contentis that he is entitled te « 
10% commission on the total smount of the goods sold te this concern 
by the defendant, for the reason that the goods in question were 
shipped inte the territory of China, which territery is cevered by 
Complainant's contract, The question then is; Sid the defendant have 
knowledge when it sold these goods te the Tupman-Thurlow Co. that the 
goods were to be shipped into the territory cevered by the contract 
between the parties? if se, the complainant is entitied te his 
commission. Upon the question of knowledge, the evidence ig to the 
effect that the purchaser of these goods wes never « customer of 
the defendant; that the purehase was made by Tupman-Thurlew Go.; 
that the sale originated with Tupman-Thurlow Co. in Chieage, and 
that the goods were shipped by the defendant te this concern in 
Chieago; that Tupman-Thuriow Co. gave the international Forwarding 
Gompany shipping instructions and the goods were shipped by this 
Forwarding Co. to the Shanghai Iee and Cold Storage Company, Nanking 
via Shanghai; that the defendantiin the instant cxse did not ship 
these goods, and the court found, in approving the Master's finding, 
that these goods were shipped, without its knowledge, inte the 
territery covered by the contract between the parties. 

The evidence does not indicate that thie was = ssle ande 
to a customer in the territory covered by the contract, nor thet 
the shipping of these goods was handied by the defeniant in o way 
that would tend to show an effert on the part of the defendant te 


* 
bottinbs wl 21 sduyooes Yunque? B tuadtit edd et ae etigedd on at 
tom aow tuatiniqmon oft tdgtereve ae dyverdd todd sankasleb edt yd 
gt? Gude Bee ,dteeoa eldt ao ancisalinnoo aindreo dfin botthere 
eid? .soxreed add mh Sametetl saath oe tavewr o4¢ @ad? seek ote — 
| “960 gikated sakde odeer — wate 
~dasqut oft te todd ot Ye Doadnlques wot? todte Vino GaP” we 
a oF Reltttac ef ox todd shaotnes tuontelqnos edt has . 100 ana 
arsonod sit? of Dio vbooy st Yo tivoms Lotod sft mo noltetmmos AOL 
‘grew wotiavep al ebony add tet? moeeoe ott sot vinchwoted oat ye 
yd hexeveo ef yrodferes werd jaaiao Ye trothenst ont ata meets : 
oved Qaahaeteb adé bid rel sod? mottesvp ef tourtnos atte 
ode todd 269 woitidT-aanqut eff of ehoog candt bkoe tt sve shales 
foctiaos OHt ys boreven yrodsened oft odnt heey hie Od of wow whoey 
aid of bolsitas at Sainbabyaes edt yos TL ‘Teeitees att aeowted 
‘etd of a somebive on? .ogboimond to moldeurm edt meq sxotantango 
to tasotave « teaver ace ehoog seeds Yo teandorug od Sad? goorte 
4.00 weimuat-namrit Yo obam eow seastoxuy ott Ged? qttohaetebowde 
Des yogeetas af .00 wolunttranqui dtiw betanigivo eine edt dant 
at azeenee aitt of tachasteb odd ys hequide onew abooy od tedé 
 giketowrot fete ttanvedel off oveg sod wokuedtonmnert dade jegantdd 
( gtdé 40 Recotde tuew ebony off ban stobrowttent yaniqhde yedmee 
gkkiaed ,yarquo® waredS blob bar ebT Ledyomtt ade or .0d gatbenwrdt 
‘gids ton DAD Sea sanded oA adtensnaenen” ede edd jRadyandte ety 
wpothedt atretestt od¢ gatvoreqs af ,dewot draws ot Dae abeoy bred? 
eld fat yepbelwond ett dwodtiw beqetde wen aboog baedt test 
‘@bhaw efen 2 ehw edt todd ofenibat tet e00d oonebive eR 
(tad con ,teatimoe odd yW hoteve yrotivesd edt ad vemoteme 6 Od 
You 0 ab dasknoteh od? YC belhned wow sheog seed? Yo yoteqiite one 
Ot Paabneteb off To Seay ott Ho Motto me woke oF buot Siow dadt 





8 
avoid payment of a commission. fherefore, the court was clearly 
justified in finding that the sale was wade to the Tupman-Thurlow Ge. 
in good faith. The test is not necessnrily where the defendant 
entered into the contract with Tupman-Thurlow Go., or where the goods 
were delivered, or even the intention of not violating the terme of 
the contract with the compisinant. The controlling fact is that 
the defendant hed knowledge that the destination of the product sold 
to the Tupman-Thurlow Co. was to be, ani in fact wee, shipped by the 
defendsnt to points within the exclusive territory covered by the 
Contract between the parties. Murshsali_ v. Ganad 
Sq. i160 Ill. App. il4 

The Ghancelleor was justified in approving the Master's 
report when he found that it does not appcer from the evidence thet 
the defendant had knowledge that the destination of the soode 
sold te Tupman-Thuriow Co. was within the exelusive territory covered 
by the contract between the compisinant and the defendent. 

We are of the opinion that the decree ordered by the 
court is supsorted by the evidence and that there is no such errer 
as would justify a reversal. The decree is therefore affirmed. 





DECRER AFFIRMED, 
WILSON, .4. AND HALL, J. conoUR. 


& 
& 
ete 


“Unoete sow tubo ot yerotoredT otentanes ate — — lows 








inabaetes edt’ oxedw yLitaescoen ton ab tuot edt othe | ong al 
shook oft oxedu to ..00 woltud?-nemqut détw toatinee one oink boned 
te ware? ot gattskoty tom to Boltnodal odd nove xo <hexovilab bee 
ted? ef toat gatliortnos edt -dnanteiqnod ode dvew poovtuen on 
bles tevbery edt te wo ttanttaed ‘edd gadt onbola oau hed taabaeteb 
odt wd bequide ose ‘ton ak bus sed od eam 08 voluudT~nanaut 9 vas ot 
edt yd boxevao Wotirnd evieuioxs ott abdtie ⸗miot datas 
amti_bon gaahro? masthead .~Llatinnes coats nt —* then , 
atrotent ats guiverecs at ostteaut ase — * * — ged ; 
asdt sonabive edt nowt xeouge toa seab #2 tade bave® fd node tuoqer 
" ghoog sit to moftanitesh edt tadd Abe lyban — * ered one 
berevon ——— — —— oat j absitbe aow 100 — ED — tot * 
“ade ed borebse caused oda tat noLatge oda Yo ote yin 
coors Hows on si sted? tadt fas oomebive ode AA * 


— ortoreds at ‘vorot ett 


















a 
_—s oh oe 4 hs ot 





tial 


* —— 4 yeti Fe Ye Uk gy ee OR Gale. erie ae eae 
cau hing See Het 


& 


ee ie Ver daee yeah Re esr 





Satwogs ptoe Pee we Se eee: wee 
faccwntok tt wd heli ane whan Rey Be spsdigny Saw ad 
ah Metre we we 2 baer tel | 


HAHNENANN INSTITUTIONS OF CHICGZGO, 1 
a Gorporation, for use of Fist 
Bank of Palatine, « corporation, 








Appellee, 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
Ve 


— 


GERTRAL REPUBLIC BANK ARD TRUGT COM) ARY, 
aCorporation, successor by consolidation OF CHICAGO, 
to Central Trust Jompany of lliinois, 


a Corporstion, 7 Q ee 6 1 5 


Appeliant,. 
Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

Wk. JUSTICE HESEL OFLIVERED THE OPIWION OF THE SovuRT, 

The Central “epubliec Bank and Trust Company, a corporation, 
successor by consolidetion to the Central Trust Company of Illinois, 
& Gorporstion, appeals from an order against it as garnishee in the 
case of Hahnemann Institutions of Ghieage, Inc., for use of First 
National Sank of Palatine, « corporation, agsinst ssid garnishee, 
whieh judgment was ent«red in the Municipal Court of Chicage. 

From the material facts in the record it appears that a 
judgment by confession was entered in the Municipal Court on August 
il, 1930, in favor of the pisintiff and against the Hahnemann 
institutions of Chicago, Ine. for the sum of §3,391.08. An 
execution was issued on this judgment on August 15, 1930, which 
was returned, on November 14, 1930, by the bailiff of the Municipal 
Sourt of Chicago, "Ne preperty found and no part satisfied." on 

August 25, 1930, upon motion of the defendant, lesve was granted 

| by the defendant to appear and make defense, and that the judgment 
was to stand se security, end that execution be steyed. On 
November 21, 1930,the trial court found that there wee due to the 
pleintiff from the defendant as of the date of the confession, the 
sum of $2,391.08, and entered judgment confirming the judgment of 
dugust 11, 1920, 

On December 8, 1920, an affidavit for garnishee susmens 









MORE 
THUGS aagaauu 


_, VORANEHR, 10 


GLO AL ov 


SSCL Q8S dors beLit aotaiqo pa alae Hana 
.THUOG FHT 10 HOLME INT GUARVEING JASN ADLTOTL. sia ae 
Oke wTOgTeS 8. a Yaeqae? teatt bar wast olidugel Lavtmey. od. Go ais — 
sehowflit to Yaecmed taunt Lersaeo ot? o& aolisbilosaes Lol ——— 
edé af sevieteteg os $2 tendeye t0beo ae wort. ofeoqas apkt” a 
tarit to eew tot ,.90 ,ogsetdd to emolgutttent, mnanendel to | aso 
sodatanny biee tantngs ,aeitetoqtos 2 ,onkteles to a Fe oe Ls f 
sogsoidd Yo trve? Lnqioimulh ad? at bore tae er tooanbat fade: 
e tadd exasqqe $2 Drove: ett nf atest talnotem edt wOXe : 
tevgad ao txu9d Laqtolayy sit ai Seretne vow agdoentace ye * 
anaoalan odd teakege hos Witaiela ed? to Tevet ad. 9088 oh 
ah 80,108, 82 Xo mus ot za? .0a% yoyaoddd Yo anette tent. 
dota ~C8L .ai temguA do Inemghat eid? de bavcet enw mottuonxe 
Seqioiags edt to ‘Ttifiad edt yd ,O8@L oat toccrovon Fics) sbemutor ey 
m0 *,beltelten ivaq on bas dowo? useeqety our \ognotdo ——— 
betasty esw sras ,taahastob ed? te aelton aoqy ,0SEL a6 taurus 
tromghu, od? tedt bee .sensteh eiaw Bae aaecgs of tachastob edt ws 
nO «©. beyste ed aokgvoexe ted? bas Ui itwvose ee bande oe en 4 
edd of xb eow ovedt todt bawet taveo Leiat ont .OB0z lt ody | | 
ad ,woteastnod oct to oteh ott Yo es tnebastob edt moxt —D 
to edt rr" teomghyt beredas Sux 1 804L68 48 to sue ‘ 
sO At Fou, 
onomawe eoduierey tot fivebitte me ,O8CL 6 redmeoed aD | 























2 
was filed by the plaintiff, setting up the judgment, and praying 
that a garnishee suamons be issued, which summons was duly issued 
and served upon the garnishee defendant in the instant ease. The 
garnishee defendant filed ite answer stating that it had sufficient 
funds in its hands to pay the plaintiff's claim in the sum of 
$2,443.75. Thereafter, the judgwent of November 21, 1930, was 
vacated, the osuse reinstated, and, on January 13, 1931, the trial 
court upon a trial, found the issues for the defendant. Upon entry 
of the judgment, the plaintiff appesled te the Appellate Court. 
This court on december 2, 1951, entered an order to the effect that 
the judgment of the Nunicipsl Gourt of Chicago be reversed or set 
aside and entered judgment for the pinintiff, the First National 
Bank of Paletine, and egainst the defendant, the Hahnemann Institu- 
tions of Chicago, Ine., in the sum of /2,550.39. 

Prier to the entry of the juigment by this court, the 
Central Trust Company of Illinois, es garnishee, moved te be dis- 
charged, and on Februsry 3, 1931, this motion was everruled, and 
thereafter, upon entry of the order and judgment of the Appellate 
Gourt, upon motion of the plaintiff, « judgment wes entered in the 
Municipal Court of Chicago against the defendant garnishee on its 
answer, which had been filed on December 16, 1930, for the sum of 
$3,443.75. 

The order of the Appellate Court entered on December 5, 
1932, in the case of the First 3 ne ve Hahpemenn 
« in case hie, 35070, is to the effect 
that the judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago against the pleine 
tiff was reversed, anmlied and set aside, and sae 2 result, the judg- 
ment so entered in the Municipal Court of Chiengo wes vacated by this 
order, fhe original judguent by confession was then in full force and 
effect as confirmed by the trial court on November 11, 1936, and 








a 

gatysty bas yfaompby, odd qo gatties J—— and Aid bed st ital 
bases: ¢ieb eew stones doidy ,bexeed od stownie osdalonay « tate 
ag? .se6m tasteni ed? ni dashavies eedeloteg eft aequ bevtee Sas 
tuntetvtae bad ti tad? galgera tewens efi heist teehmeteb oedetorag 

_ 2e mee ont at alain oe ttigalely oda Yaq OF eked ieee ad efewt 

pie 2664 ,8 tedsievek te taemgbi, one aomo⸗rear — 

: y Lewes edd 5601. , 84 yreacrats aD bats sotstenios onuao ovis boteony 
Tata wont etnahapteh ods ‘tok seuss odd fuewot ghetet s neqy toe 
«ts ataLieaa. ‘ont ot besnsaus Wiitalelq edt ,taemybert aft to 

_, halt geette ad? of uobze ae berbiue {BEL .B xedusoed mo treo ated 

tee so Beoxever ed ogeoidd Yo dune Laqiodani eds te Aoen dut — 
Kenentet tent oft akeaalgg od? to tnomghot bexotae 3 bas obtas 

wotstont aaannaaan oft ,tanbeoteh edt tantegs ban yoattees to Anat 
aca | Ab 0 to, mane act @t , oni * wat Be, wot 

wash vi ae —X arena ee wtbonbich * ecm D ew | 

bas ,telerreve am gotten edt SCL f 















Ras aD — —— sda — —* i * ets Feely 
te mye lt sot yOURL Ak, cedmnoys co BOLE am of bad ye 


, & Ax Re 


—— erie Ra 
soorte odd of a2 {oto * ‘aves a . o_sugdsuttten 
ntnin ot feainge ogeatd? Yo trueh Lactnzed ot Yo teompiut ot tas 
~siui of? ,tiunex ¢ as hae .ebtes toa ban beLiaas beers < ven 
aid ye bateoey naw ogeoid? to sued Leqtetaum odd at — * 
has ebrot {10% nt aedt sew aoteastaoe y teemgtut J Agie —— 


— ay See ages: 


bas. . rtt Lf todanvpl me, twp Lndnt sdf yo bemetage an ·rein · 








3 

shat the judgment entered by the Appellate Court for the sum of 
$2,550.39, in effect, affirmed the judgment by confession. This 
judgment may be irregular in form, but it is final end res 
adjudicats as between the varties ae to the originel judgment. 

The appeal by the plaintiff in thot case stayed the exeou- 
tion of the judgment entered in the Municipal Court, and «hen the 
order was entered by this court its validity was =t an end, and from 
the facts found in the order of the Appellate Court, the judgment 
in question was restored uson the entry of the order. The same result 
would heve followed if the order had been the same ani the cause 
remanded to the triai court to enter a proper order. The appelisate 
Court hed jurisdiction both of the parties and the subject matter, 
and is authoriced by low under circumstances such se appesr in this 
record, to render judgment, ani the order, upon the Court's finding 
of fact, was justifiec. enistee iumber Co, v. Union Nat. Bank, 142 
fil. 490. 

Gernishment proceedings under the statute of this stete 
Covering auch actions, are supplementary to the judgment sesinet the 
judgment debtor, and there oan be no recovery in » proceedings 
against the garnishee unless the judgment debter might maintain an 
action at law against the gernishee for whatever it is that the 
judgment oreditor seeks to recover against the gornishee., Senk of 
Sommerce v. Erankiin, &8 Ili. App. 198. 

There is ne question that the judgment against the defendant 
was 2 part of the record in the original ease. This proceeding depends 
upon the finality of the judgment ageinst the defendant, Halinemann 
institutions of Ghicago, Ine., and it would seem from this reeord 
that the sum due from the garnishee to the defendant should be applied 
to the payment of the plaintiff's judgment, 


€ 
Re mut Ae wo? Pened ofALioggd Ot ye borsitms snminghart One emt 
“Pid? eoteastace we — ot? howrkrts .deerte at (e2.caelee 
"pay Boe Deel? of 22 fod pwteT HP eelngores Od yon’ ‘teeny birt, 
‘ydrtteg hut Leaky ise od? of ef weitere otr — 
-s09x9 OAS Doyere See Peay al Thddataly odh yw Lregee onr * a Rv 
ond gow bax gfruo) Leqleine eff af. bereras: dicomg beet odd te not 
wort Kid hee me te aow YEDLiev ett trio etdd UC beredao ew ceDTe 
aiceogtar, edd {even of el Longa: Oe Yo TONES CHR Ad! Rae W epeMt eee 
weor ate Od ebro ont Ro Yrtwe att aotw horoteer, sew mediteeep mk 
eaiiee Odd baw Saxe off aver bet «abee oft Dt beweliet eval hltsdir 
aibilequa edt .tabsa xegqese @ t6tae of damon Leatd ont ot peapeNes 
(Lotion J09LGer ont Raw amdtese se Tor Mtod modgvbetet bet Pred 
side Ri TmeqEs eo dewe eMametemNnTtS ohms wed yd beetnoitus ob baa : 
—— a ru odd. ——— —— — —— ronidn os ———— 
tae. stkel oie 0 49) Tecan wome.t — Avoo⸗t Yo 
ee Wipes ae e 0a: wana 
atute ols Yo etutave ote Teka —— —— ab ag reua 
odd Panione tiemghut edt of yretwousique® ses nna a toute mactrovee 
egal esory # ab yevenet as ed gap wreds been gvosdah snonyout 
ne atetotem tain sotdeb trampkut ot atinn sedetatay ent wonkwge 
‘odd fedd o2 tf tevedniw TOT sodeinrey eer Fen tege val te xobtor 
— —* ont coin ToveDet ef elede rod tboxe dmeayhur 
—— | © (BCE saa VALE 88 .gkcauneT wv gonemnad 
nature tak of? Perboys. tnosybuh. ade tote MOR sue om at oxodT ts eee 
reqab _ukbewbote ektl, sane dmehy tio: eat wd proves oft Ye oxne «enw 
 tiheniet ,taedaeted ede fenteys toomghet sit Re Kekéandt ete moe 
 breoet BART wort moe Biwow 4 bas sa0RT .ogneif9 Yo emo tows btmect 
pbigga ef Bivota mabasteb sis oF setatareg: ede woek th oats tase 
| taeagbeg * ade te — ads at 


bag cath eat fe eae oaths 








The gornishee defendant, sowever, submits the ousstion 
as to the statue where a judgement upon which the garnishment is 
based, is superseded by a judgment in a court of anpellate juris- 
diction. The vecation of the judgement of dismies:1 upon appeal 
restores the judgment entered by confeesion. “hile it is true 
that ae the record now stands there appesr to be two judgments in 
one setion - which is irregular ~ the difference between the two 
judemente is that in one of them leave was grented the defendant 
by the trisl court te defend end the judgment was aiterwards cone 
firmed and is still in full force and effect; and in the other,a 
judgment wee entered in the Appellate Court and is binding upon 
the plaintiff and the defendant. It is not void in the sense 
thet the court was without jurisdiction of the s«reons and the 
subject matter. But hovever irregular, the garnirhee hes no right 
to complain of such matters ss do not go to the jurisdiction of 
the court. Dennison, et al. v. Taylor, «t al., 142 Ill. 45. 

In thet ease the Supreme Court announced the established rule 
covering ectiéne of this kind, which rule ie applicable to the 
iesuee involved in this esse. The court makes tiie statement of 
the rule: 

“In respect to irregulsrities thet amount to error, 
merely, in the proceedings of the court disporing of the 
main controversy, - i. ¢., the sontroversy between the 
plaintiff in attachment and the defendant in attechment — 
the garnishee has no right to complain, for euch matters 
de not concern him; but when the defect goes to the juris- 
dietion of the court to act in the premises, and the 
question is whether or not the tribunel assuming to act has 

uriediction of the subject mstter or of the person of the 
efendant in attochment, the rule ie otherwise. The 
plainest dictates of justice recuire that this should be so, 
for if it wes not, the garnishee might be compelled to pay 
the seme debt twice." 


In thie opinion, the court quoted with approvel from 


Pierce v. Carleton, 12 Ill. 358, a# follows: 


3 


sokteswn edt etiadyws ,tevewer ,tusbas hed — ent 
nt tomietorey edt doicw seqw teem shart £ -tede awdeee ont ‘ot Me 
~attwt ethffecte te t1v0o 4 at taemabet a yd behosteque Ce beast 
fseqqs @equ Loealmelb te tavmghyt odd te soktsoav od? “\aobtekh 
out? @f tt efid% .aoiesstace yd botsdne taemyburt, edt everest 
‘Hk ataeaytet owt 9d oF toequs ered? abasta won brooes oat an fast 
ot ont aoowded somorsttibh oat - xefegoret a foide - - mottos emo 
 dustae rad Gd dotaatg enw eveer wedd to ene at ‘todd at ‘ataonahat 


mae abrawrss te: age — ow. hee baoteb ot sru09 —— ads ww 





‘gBhee 6H? af biov tom af #1 ‘dihaliine — at bao 2 ¢ — oa 
ptt bas amowtie ont te aobtontobnat ¢ twats * Haid ont : 
tdgit On Gat oSdetomey edt ,tolege eae tat abit on” 
te nottoibetcyt add at —* tom ob od — aaa 
feb etet on fe ge jeodtnay 











ide —4* pee es * 
* Nee 


odd OF oiiavifges ak Slot doldw iba’ ehas ee * — 
te mono⸗a⸗a ated sodem Saucd eet swe aka ai bevfoval seumak— 
: a eee ye ERE NRO. IEE ACA a a ae Loti ont J 


terre of davomes sattt *—— vies “ee bred at senny Ke 
oa te 3 af eateg gakb — oat t ODOT J —— 














modest oat ot 9803 —— Be eo pmb 
oat ahs —— * 


ad — J I 
—* 7 o8 of 2a se — 
298 sai 30 
on ad a alist re} 


WES Peaeeeme At task —— 
mort? mean dtiv betewp tuxedo Ode | i ie at at wast) dan dpe 
— —— ad jet tr goeeead V boxed 


# ihe ath Petatedts Gatos ais ed 








*it is clear, therefore, that « Foe eager yee should 
be permitted to inquire into the validity of the previous 
proceedings in the case. If suoh proceedings are void, 
the judgment agsinst the garnishee may for that esuse be 
reve on error. Gut if the court bead jurisdiction, its 
errors and irregularities can only be called in question 
by the defendant, and that, too, in a direct proceeding 
for the purpose, fhey affect bim only, and he may waive 
or insist on them. The garnishee has no cause to complain, 
for he will be protected in the payment of the judgment." 


Ag an indication that the judgment order of the Appellate 
Sourt is an irregularity that does not affect the merits, but 
rather goes to its form, this court in the oase of Gervenks v. 
Hunter, ¢t al., 185 Ill. Avp. 547, in = somewhat simila® situation 
where two judgments were entered in one action, said: 
"This was undoubtedly irregular, because the judguent which 


was entered August 3, 1911, still stood on the record secord-~ 
ing to the order of t 8, 1911. 

The judgment have been in the form set forth in 
Lyman et al v. Kline, 128 111, App. 497, and Northeastern 
Goal Company ve Tyrreil, 133 111. App. 472. 

But as we seid in et al v. Kline, supra, ‘such 
error can be corrected without affecting the merits of the 


eapse or the rights cf appeliants.* 
From the nt of February 24, 1913, the defendants 


$ 
appealed to this Court, and as among the errors assigned is 
one thet the dourt erred in entering two j nts in the 
cause, we must, for thie errer, which ia well assigned, 
remand the cause for «= correction of the judgment, Sut we 
find no reason te do ao for a new trial. There is no error 
affecting the merite of the eause." 

The judgment order entered in the Appellate Court in the 
instant oase is an irregularity thet goes to the form oniy. The 
judgaent by confession confirmed by the trial court om November 11, 
1930, is the judgment upon which this garnishment proceeding is founded, 
and the gernishee-defendant is eumply protected in complying with the 
judgment of the Municipsl Gourt of Chicsge by paying the amount ad- 
mitted due in its answer. The irregularity does not sffect the 
validity of the previous proceeding and it can be questioned if at sll 
by the defendant in the original euit. 

The nt is accordin affirmed, 

— * JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


WILSON, . 4. ABD HALL, J. CONOUR, 


<i, Apap wotaeck oa 
— — —— ise tat cere are * hase PCBS 
















ay Sue sk egad ber 
eRNsd gett 8 aw ——— —* af tanked fnems dist 
oth ~intimibeituy, Bes teves ed? Th Suh .tette ao 
moitessp st pan - fal 9e rhb prone Re 
— gebbewoas ees & : 
oviox = > * ag cm Me d gostts yod? od 
saignee ad SRNRS OM aetetarag § 
* ———— edt to rtacuvaa oilt ai betoasors rma ie 
etalioges ode ‘te vebre ‘dasmgbut ast ‘ted sotteoibas me a 
te etiron ad? toette ton asob ade header ened 
mi +¥ saloetad te suse edt ak ‘e009 A⸗⸗ wero? si * —5 


abtrautie —— aagraso⸗ at “ah ott eat ote Lt * tas 


— — 


ah ie fon steak * gh’ — * 
| — bas Gt 2G of fk BEL 


i ams : 
dose ® eably * is te Lie Ys 
Siam Sad. —* 


——— ——— —— — 
a ——— — 5* oe Doe 4 


— me ei Py , — 
— Om ai axed? “asked —* — ——— — —— a 
odd ah. truset stalinees ast at Bereten sabto tuomutut Om 
ott ine atot edt ov 200g tent Whratugonst as 5 ob sass t 
4 rons wwron us STH Later ada al i | } 4 ae 
Hehavot ef getheovorg, ea daaa iatan ead dette ewe * i 7 . 
edt ftw aes yqnae ed beteorong vlan wh sus te mf és 2 
— —— a — 







mine 


ehowritte ylgaldroooe af —— am 
ERMA TGIA PAAMOCUL 





\RUOWOO .% .1UAN 


§ 
f 


KDWARD 3. NOVAK, \ Jf apPtaL PROM 
Appellant, « 





MUNICIPAL QoURy 
Ve 


reren v. naneay, | 270 LA'S 15 


Appellee, 
Opinion filed March 29, 1933 


MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE Cover. 

This is an action in replevin brought by the plaintiff 
egninst the defendant for the reeevery of sertain goods and chattels. 
The property was net recovered by the plaintiff upen the service 
of the renlevin writ, amd therefore he filed by leave of court « 
count in trover te recover the velue of the chattels. Trial was 
hed before the court without » jury, and at the conelusion ef the 
hesring the court found for the defendant, and entered judguent on 
the finding, from which judgment the plaintiff appesle. The 
defendant did not follow this spresi, and therefore we sre without 
the benefit of hie briez, 

The evidence ie substantially that the plaintiff and 
Catherine ©, Symozyk entered into a contract by whieh the plaintiff 
agreed to sell and Oatherine ¢. Symezyk agreed to purchase the prop- 
erty known es 519 fest 119th Street, Chicago; that by the terme of 
this agreezent Catherine ¢. Symesyk agreed to pay 13,460 in monthly 
inetaliments of $225, and, upon payment of the gum provided for, the 
Plaintiff agreed ta oonvey title to the property in queation to the 
purchaser, subject to « first sortgsage of $15,000, and alse a second 
mortgsge of $11,960; that when Gatherine G. Symeryk took possession 
of the cremises there was attached te the buliding, as 2 part ef the 
realty, one beth tub end connections, « water hester, end weter tenk 
and stand, the chattels involved in this proceeding; thet default was 
meade in the payment of the monthly installments provided for by 
























— 


on aa 





wie Lankans 


ea sse@L a doreM beltt aotaiqod | 
y — nev 46 “Woluteo at aanurt a ieee —E — 

— ——— ee ee ‘$dgvess abvaicor ak ‘doltos a ok ante 
eked toto bas — — to — ote wt tuabaoral 





— Hie He oreat We Basat oe * ae 
— — ee tango edt * * — bes : J 





hae ‘aideiesy eds al’ als retinue at oe 
Wiondele edt doide, ye snextaee s odat barnes 
On a ode enadongy Of i oe 3 


at Yo trax 2 0 antbiies set ot ei ee 
inst vets ban rotned aataw — enodtoons — Ae 00 —— loon 
an tected ted? tymtesoorg edd ab boviows ekettade ad —* all 

YS wot Bebivery esneeiiatent Ydidaow edt to tupmy | | * i 





2 

the contract; thet Catherine G. Symexyk made soge of the monthly 
payments provided for by the contract, but feiled to continue to 
make payments, as agreed upon, and being in default, abandoned the 
premises in question together with the defendant, who wae a tenant of 
the purchaser; that while Gatherine G. Symoryk #a9 in poseession of 
the vremises, the chattels above mentioned were detaghed sand removed, 
and from the evidence it appears that they were solid by Catherine 

G. Symoryk to the defendent, snd thet the defendant hed knowledge that 
the beth tub and connections, together with the water heater and 
tank came from the building at 519 West 1Li9th Street, Chicege,at 

the time he claims to have purchased the ohattels from Gatherine 
Symegyk; and that these chattels were subsequently instelled in the 
defendant's building located at 725 119th Street, Chieage. 

The chattels were attached to the buiiding, end being se 
inetelléd became « partyof the realty, ami they were so attached at 
the time the purchaser, Gatherine ¢. Symeryk teck porsecssicn. She 
was without title to the premises end therefore could not dispose of 
the chattela by sale after tortious removal, and sconvey title te the 
defendant. The defendant took the chattels with the knowiedge thet 
they were formerly installed aa a part of the reslty at 519 weet 
Ligth Street, and by his alleged curehnase of these chattels from 
Gatherine G. Symezyk obtained no titie. 

From the facts, the court erred in entering judgment for 
the defendant, and for the rensenes stated the judgment is reversed 


and the cause remanded. 
REVERSED AND CAHEGE ASRARDED. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HALL, J. GonoUA. 


yUsioon edt To Mee ehom dyronye 0 sabtedted stadt (ehexenen nat 
of uaktnee ot belict ted ,soerga00 edd yd sot tebivort ‘ataoaysq 
edt bencbaeda ,éissteb ai gated Sas attoges —E as yatetemyaq oem 


te Fnenet © aor oy ,tashastod edt Ati redtogot moitenup ah esaimeng 


; to sebesecueg af enw a groR ys 9 acbrsddad eiidw tadd preeadote ‘esl 


| —E herr: petneras oxen engines ovods aietinds ols ssealmeng ed? 


satusdéad ¢d blow exew yadt teay exaqae #i seaebivs nds mort cae 
ted? agoeiwonx hed tacbastob eft feds bas atashasted ade ot senowys 0 


bes teteed retas ad? tte xedtegod .emoitessnco bus dat dted edt 


te ogooidd .teort® AVCLE toot GL@ te galbized eat soxt —2 ge ‘hawt 


eattedtad sett efor tado str boeadony ovad of entele ed aiike edt 


edt at belictent yitueupeedue ora" alettade euddt tedd bea 








sopeeid? .feerd? AVGLE BRT ta betaved — ates rN 


on gated dite <arlbliod od? of Desastte ovew alot sada ar 
te bedostia o@ e140 yea? han ,yeleor ade hoystog ame ys 4 
et@ .noheesesoy Soot dysomy® 00 eaivedteD .xeaadbaus 





to deoqalb ten Sino etototedt bus eeedmety ett ot “ —* 7 





ad? of e188? yrenoo bus ,levowet avotetod wavte ofae yd > at 
tad eybetwons odt tiw efottade edt dood sashaet sb edt stonbaoteb 
' $qe8 GE8 to Ghlows oft to rac 2 an heLintent yromrot ener ois 
mort eiottado ceed? to oundonmg begets eld vf hao teoute Ate. 
ithe om Denkintde syeMANe * sabnodiet 
2dl tuduphut getters ni doxee seen odd .ttont odd wont . 
beerover al taeestet nee borate saoener Sat xd ban teabasteb oid 











— BeAo cua ‘exenavag © OO B— ea 
| Ba 


— — 


eve ee eee a 


i ee Avieck abe: it A⸗k 


a * ig e Senet tite ; * 
4 pete? ee Pte os a ae 





NS i eae J 
Me ied aie ai io sa eal 7 
‘ ? min’ hed), a * 
yea re 
TE a * 


35937 / f 
DAVID B. FRANZ, * 





Appellee, a8 
Ve 
GANTON ROLLING MILL CORPORATION, 
& Corporation, *#t al, 


SUPERIOR OOURT 


Defendants, OF COOK OQUNTY. 
On Appeal of UODFAEY COMA, et al., 9 pay 0 este * > 
; 0 iA 7 
—— VU L. A. 615 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

UR. JUGTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE coURT, 

This ia 2 awit by the pleintif? agsinet the defendente 
Godfrey Cohn, Charles 4. insterly and Genfen Solling Will Cerporstion, 
The plaintiff by his declaration alleged that the defendants seid 
to him shares of the capital stock of the Osnten Aelling #412 
Corporation for $1,000, and that this eale ess in vieletion ef the 
Tiliinoie Securities Act. The defendant Godfrey Cohn wes the only 
one served with summons. He entered his appearance and filed a ples 
and affidavit of defense. The other defendants, Janton Felling Mill 
Gerrorstion and Charles 4. Easterly were not served with suanene and 
aid not file an sppearance, These defendants were not represented, 
and it spoeere that they were not present st the triel of the ceuse. 
fhe @as¢ wae tried before the court, and judgsuent entered for the 
Plaintiff and ageinet the three defendants, Godfrey Cohn, Cherles 4. 
Easterly snd Csnton \olling Mill Corporation, in the sum of 51,350, 
which sum represents $1,000 prid by the plaintiff for the stock, 
and €250 for attorney's fees allowed in thie esse. From this judg- 
ment the defendant Godfrey Gohn appesled to this court by filing 
an appesi bend, which was sporeved by the trial court on Febdrucry 
23, 18932. The record was filed on iimreoh 15, 1932. On the same date 
the defendant Godfrey dohn filed an abstract of the recerd, followed 
by a brief, which was filed on April 20, 1932. 





Biles xolaawe 


* samiage 000 w 


“eto el Ors. 


pepe sc: BERL es dors 59Ltt ao ratao —— ‘ 

. tnooo RAY W MOTAING AT CaKaVIuaG JuBsH ——— hg — 
“wtashasteh od? tentegs Thitately dt Ww tle eb pares " oie 
sto tt exoqtet ii yadlion medast bate cézoponi lh eedem aen se J 
Ao⸗ Ä oid dod begalin soltensioed ad WX r 
























er as Rew alee “qotten 1 tuchastet * ston — “ , Mong 
aelg @ beitt bar wonotaagss aid bowesae * — ——— V — — 
Libs gatiio# aotasd utmabackad rodéo off .onaeknd Yo givabite haw 
bus amomess dtiy bevrea tea exon ——— * ———— bua as —E 

—D— — tow eto eiaekastob eood? seomeneseas as 


soem edt 20 Laine oa te taneung fou ory wade te erom 


r pre add aut —5 ne —* oreo 000,28 « aimee ; matte, idee 
~abut stct mori sane aide at Rowodte — — 
gaklit yd fxsoo side of bekneags sted yorthod, tnaheaeth it: team: 
Viewtdet ne trvee Lasse ards yo Dewewutee ewe dade hm i iaegge am 
eteh omnes od? wo .8ECL 48k foxik ao tess? sow Stopes et sabes gee 
howollot .irovex wad te tontieds ae Best mdod yortbod sanbaskeh edt 
- OGL +98 Laxgh do DOLE? wow dotdw toted a 








fhe defendant's contention, ss sppeare from his brief, 
ia thet the court entered an erroneous joint judgment sgrainet the 
defendants Godfrey Gohn, charles uu. Yasteriy and the Canton Holling 
Mill Sorporstion; that Gedfrey Cohn wes the only defendant served 
with summons ond he, filed hie appearance ond wae present in court 
at the trial. Upon thie stete of the record this court would have 
to reverse the judgment and remand the ceuse for « further trial. 
However, after appenl to the Appellate Court had been verfeoted, 
the trial court on motion ef the plaintiff ond after notice te the 
defendent Godfrey Cehn, entered an order on June 7, 1952, amending 
the judgment order by striking out the newes of the defendant, Canton 
Relling #411 Corporation ond Cherries &. Saaterly, for rant of 
services of summons and these defendants not being in ecurt. 

Upon the vlinintiff suggesting « diminution of the record, 
a supslesental recerd was filed showing an amended juignent entered 
by the trisi ccurt. 

The defendant before this court insists thet the trial 
court erred in entering the judgment and has osnlled te oyr attention 
the ease of the Iliine « BeCormick, #t 21, 61 
Til. 382. In that case after the record wee filed in the Gupreme 
Gourt and errors assigned, the deeree was anended in the sourt below 





at a subsequent term to the one at which the decree wan entered. The 
Supreme Court held thet aueh preetice was irreguler and that the 
Supreme Court sust and did decide the case upon the record originally 
filed. The instant case is properly in the Appeliate Geurt, and this 
court has jurisdiction. This jurisdiction caunot be ousted by the 
subsequent erder amending the judgment entered by the trial court. 


Sarnard v. Dettennsier, 89 Ili, App. 241, 
The emended judgment before this court was not entered 


<tehed eld mos? eteeuge ax —ED oénahasted: ont — 
odt tadiegs tabegiy, talol sueedoTTe as bonetne foe ast fond at 
patie? setued sd¢ han yisetash ot seized) asi’ wrthos etenhuoteb 
hevies dasbasteb Yao dt whe tet ANON I, yoigerogtod LLM 
teases of tamnenq sow dee somertseqes eld bole ot bane sttoniaute ithe 
eved biew Mwod sift brooes edd to stete aiit mony stebta ene te 
_ ohekat xodtau? o se? eawed eit dewey hae teenglet sd? exveven oF 


| {badootnes mood hed Fxu00 etaliengs adt at decqae Tatts .xoveWsH 
ä te ontten a a 


geitwons , 8881 ,f enwk ao rebve an betadao ied -yorRbed gackaeteb— 


othe .Sasbasteh ody Yo seman ede duo geadivee We -rebee amsugyhet oe 


.tnwoo ef gitfed ton siaahtisies seeded bao enamneg WO a90lvede 
,brooet off Yo moltueialh « gatfaogyie beitusely ont apg tot 


——— —————— 


‘fee Lote wb otind 

inivt att fede wtetent free eid ¢ stoted —— Pennoni, 
aolietia to of belive oad bax wen ach — * 
pe ts ge ee sv ,09 eeot 8 Sead odes te 

‘eapruet ed? af belt sie telnet wilt —— SS ELE 

weied tveo edt ai Bybaeas sow Soreeb eff ,tmagioes exorre Bag iiwed 

ast .beretas exw vores edt doidy te one edd of wired dmoupeedan #80 

edt tc4¢ bas xaingorut aew sestonny dowe tad? bled — emacs 

eidt bao ,tiweo eéailoqqa od? mi ylreqetty ef ease daatans edt .belst 

eit qW Betavo od fotnae Aodgekbedmmt eis?  soktosdaivel wed deseo 

.trsoo deine add yw Seveen® enemmbut: odd yathaone sebno 





rae | — — man. 


“ Pexotae Yom enw Geuen wsdd sense Coe babersas — at 


— F 
gM ER LT eatin By apt 


. f 
f —* 
Gye — de Phat eh ye — at Knee: oe be Hy 
SG peet, Fr ai PP (Senge 4 eg a * — 
Wig. < WP eS ae oe 


3 
upon the hearing of further evidence by the court. That is evident 
from the bili of exeeptions in such proceeding. whether the omended 
order wis entered upon = memorandum or other reeerd does net appear 
from the order itself. is o matter of facet, there was no evidence 
heard by the trisi court uron the pleintiff's motion to amend the 
judgment order after term time, ond there does not »sppear te be any 
evidence which would justify the court in finding thet the court 
clerk, contrary to the order of the court, entered the judgment in 
qQu@stion. GC. Be & Ge He No Gos We Hingler, 105 Ill. G34. 

in the disposition of this aatter, this court will 
consider the original record filed, and from this reeord it appears 
that the judguent was entered jointly as te the defendsnts, Canton 
Roliing Will Corporstion, Gedfrey Gehn, and Charles 4, fasteriy; 
thet Godfrey Cohn was the only defendant served with summons and 
whe filed bis appearance in the cause below, and that the defendants 
Ganten Kelling Will Corporation and Charlies u. Exeterly, net being 
properly in court, the judgaent was erronegualy entered, and deing 
#0 entered as to the defendants, the judgeent is reversed and the 


Cause reannded, 
REVESEED ABB “EBARDED, 


WILGON, F.J. AND HALL, J. oncUa, 


deenive ai tel? siumme-2le Wiveemihiere ‘ndeeiny te gations od aore 
betas: ad? xedtede .gedhootety dows ai saghtqeene te isd) ‘ode gout 
geecgs fos eeob Bxoner todo te avdaetemem 2 sogy besetxe aoe tobme 
sowabive ax wrx ered? staat te tevies a wh stiswss taboo ode wort 
‘og? Detnd of moltem aerr aen aaa att mocy ttwee Lekwt ods wi beosd 
qe ef af qsenqe fos seeh ovedt han .onld weed “aes cebre dnomphat 


ai teeaybot od? Soretne ,eince ads to vabao: fe ot cerabuoy sents 


ebSO £02 OBL eedaee wo 





tiie trues altd .xertan wide to aodtleoqnsd ome — seston 


 mesmrge 2k Seoorr aide wort Sas ,balit Saveey lealgiae & 


gotar? .etnabsateh adt ot es. Uitabey bereeae env tamoutuy ot fade 
(itstect .a eedxed? dar yadely Wrthee wedtoweqned Likw gabhten 


bee euoemers dtie boris tashasheb Ylae wat een adgt Yorthon fart 


ttaahastod ade todd Mae ywoied-wansh ot 62 ennaneiqgs indi beet ode 
yaied fom ,yivetend .ii sexed Dein aoktetoqre) LM yekliod aetaa 


aoied hus ~Severse qdewotegrse oor ite oo " ak Decne sis 





—— sap idee epee: 


gaa boo oe vipa deat: eae 








if 


m Bart as 2 hy ts Ag ay nS ea Be pany —— 
wea A nigh ; — a BB ste sy 4 eae th: CO rE SS Ve 2 ——— a 


«fie RRR tare sud estat 


— in Rev Suh epee igo? —— 









é 


36001 yf / 
WILLIAM FETZER, J — ees r0 


Defendant in Error,” \ | 
Ve | 


CIRCUIT CoURT, — 
SOUTH SANTA FE LAND & DEVELOPMENT 
COMP AN 





i 


OOK COUNTY. 

270 1.A. 615¢ 
Opinion filed March 29, 1933 
WR. JUSTICE HEBEL ORLIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT, 
This is « writ of error prosecuted sy the defendant from 

an order entered on June 13, i931, by the trial court veosting on 
order entered on April 4, 1931, granting the defendant lesve to plead 
to a judgment by confeasion upon «a promissory note payable te the 
Plaintiff in the sum of 232,832.90. 

The defendant presented » motion, supported by an affidavit, 
te the trial court, asking for leave to plead and that the judgment 
by confession entered on January 6, 1927, stend as security wherein 
William Feteer is the plaintiff and the South @anta ve Land &@ 
Development Company, = corporation, is the defendant. fhe sffidavit 
in auppert of the motion was made vy one George =. Youberg, dated 
January 5, 1931, in which affidavit it is stated, in part, that 
affiant recently discovered that on January 6, 1927, without notice, 
the plaintiff cnused ajudgment by confession to be entered egainet the 
defendant in the Gireuit Court ef Cook County upon an slleged srom- 
issory note executed by the anid defendant, by the affiant as presi- 
gent, and one J. . Siechey, as secretary of this corporstion, payable 
te the order of the plaintiff;that fraud wes praeticed upon the court 
in the procurezent of the judgment by confession; thet the seid 
promissory note is not the genuine note of the defendant corporation; 
that the signsture of affiant is not the genuine signatare of affiant 
as president of the defendant company, and that the g. E. “ichey, 


ra 
® 


Plaintiff in Error, 





L gamwow grucates tout 
—— 


are Ld. At 0 he J oe ee wetembege & — ED—— 


B5CL ,e8 dors belt? aoiniqd — Not has: ao Cie eae. 
.09000 Sat WO ROTMENG SUT GEAIVINGG deem UOTROMy samen’ commas 

movt taghaored edt yo bedupsaese torre Yo dite e a atdPe oo 

Gn gattonoy tuwod Lnixt edt YS ICEL {20 enw mo beret wabte ae 
banlq of oveod ¢aehaeteb odf gudtnos® ,J80L 4d Lena ao: beteyee colne. 
: ee | 
| | 08 EEO REY to me ett —⸗ : 
“divebdtte ae ud bedcoqqum ysokdom @ Seduovesq tawhawton mh 6 Foo! 
favegiwt ede ted? dao beolg at eveel ao? gables 4omme tater ade oo 
aierede ysirveer ae baste ,T2L 9 Yaswnel ao berehee okcastoon yt 
 & hasd @% stand dtvel edt bne ttaladg odd eb esto tumnbeten 
tivebsiia ek? ,tnahaated ed? eh yeolteroqna® & yyneqmod tmomgoteved 
botok yyredeo™ .4 eyoet ene yo ahem aan aodton add Ro droqquelal 
tod? ,itaq at ,betede al #2 tivebitte dotdw at ,LU8L 8 Yeeumat 
.*OLton twortdw TEL 8 YreuMAl ae tad? dexovooeth yltaeoer faakthe 
ed? temtaga betetme ed o¢ setacttaeo ew seeaghuts beams Vitetedy edt 
~note heyelis de sece ytaro8 dood to saved tivorti edt at tueteetod 
-inoty 2 teeltte edt qt ,tanbasteb ice ode yo bodwooxe atom yroaed 
aidayay gmoltereqsoo edt Yo yrodetose we ,yodokt oH .y Gag due gtaeb 
two edt moqy heottecry sow huotk tedd;TRhtnlelg ade Yo xebne ef oF 
dian add tad ino taaotaoe Wi saengiu, ode to — — 
jaoltoraqree taakseleh elt Yo eto aninasy edt tom af oten yrowm | 
— — ———— we 
cyodoss 6F — om — — — rob Aw! 








3 

alleged to have signed said note ae secretary of said company, wae 
not elected or appointed secretary of seid defendant corporation; 
that the defendant was never indebted to the plaintiff, and that the 
corporetion was never authorized by its Board of Directors to execute 
anid judgment note, and that no execution was ever issued after said 
judgment was entered; that «ffinant from an independent souree obtained 
knowledge of the entry of the judgment, and that om April 4, 1931, 
the motion for leave te plead was albowed; that thereafter the 
defendant filed its several plese, and thet each of seid pleas was 
properly verified by an officer of the defendant corporations, 

On May 29, 1951, 2 motion wos filed by the plaintiff te 
vacate and set aside the order of April 4, 1931, granting lesve to the 
@efendant to plesd and defend, and the plaintiff in suppert of anid 
wotion filed his verified petition, which states in psrt that srior 
to the entry of the judgment in the instant case he called upon 
George E. fosberg, president of the defendant company and demanded 
payment, and that Fosberg asked for «= delay; thet J. E. *ichey, 
secretary of the company, aise requested that section be dehayed, and 
that from the maturity of the note in 192%, until 1926, the pleintiff 
made frequent demands on Fosberg and sichey for payment, and finally 
onused the entry of the judgment. 

it further appears from this sffidavit that the plaintiff 
preceeded in the exriy part of 1927, by en actien in the Gireuit 
Gourt of Senta Fe Jounty, Hew dexice, based upon the judguent by 
confession. An order was entered in that proceeding to sell certain 
lands of the defendant in Santa ve County, New “exice, and seid lands 
were sold at « publie sale to the plaintiff and « deed ess issued 
to the plaintiff therefor. 

The defendant filed oan answer to the plaintiff's petition, 
supported by an affidavit of one George *. Fosberg, in whieh he states 
that he ie now and for one year isst past has been confined in the 





Rew ,Wingecd Bist te Yretotess es etem bine bengde ores ot : OL ‘ 
jaeltetoero? eastuwteh Bice Ye Yraterees betntoaga * botosie “hin 

edd @add bos gPtidetedg edt o¢ betdpaat toven sew funhasret ode tede 
aguoexe oF atotoorhs te henod ade y@ bestiadiue Toran Gaw sozdenogt08 
Bhee tevts besead 1078 sew moldyoexs em todd baw —R tnomgtart bites 
bealetde sewer taebaaqebad an mot? tnalths ged? porte ear tmompbyt 
(ABR gh Lexan me tent han -tnomatut odd To yxtae 04d Yo oybolwomt 
alt xogtowredt Sake, Heath: eae Rent — ſ — 

eom exide bion Yo doce tait bua ,enelq Levoven atl bet? dunda 
weitetayiee trahaeteh od¢ te — —— ——— 

maaa mid: Wt Sneha nba. Ee Seat 
bies to troqque ad Thitatelg sd. haw ahgetoh ban Baeky od tacbanted 
wakne Gadd greg ab aetete desde ytottives bettinew eid felt? nokten 

— AAA A aoa ee 
ayedete oa .G-dadt pyeiead © cot wens tits dank + essence 

fan ybayedind ed soiton tedt Aegeawoot aeke «yaeques ade Yo quateroee 
Yiiemtede edt ,WORL Ligew VSRRL ah etna. Ake Se Sebtembeen eth meateigall 
Viste? ote gtitimeyng cot yedoth baw gredeet am ↄba⸗ aat roupest eben 























pechder tueitee GAME gh Geese ee A ae —** ene 
 ttatededg ead, past tivehsite eid? sort epee aedtwt — — ce 


tiuend® odt at cotton oe Yh _T8GS to tneq eines edt mt 

VS Inonpdyt eth aoqy heeed ,opdxabh —— 
‘fAindzes Line of gathooootg ted a2 Soretae sow Tebee mk saokanphaed 
shnai bése bas ,optxel wok .youg? 63 etmni at gasbaeteh edt Yo ebaek 
bewert ôÿôö⏑— 
I——— remade se bakit: — — te” — 
evdote od doidw od qyredeot .*.ogzee9 ono to tivehitte an ys hegsecas — a 
edt al Deaitzoo mused and tag test re9y ome Ot daa wor ak oa teat ro 








3 
atate penitentiary at Joliet, lilinois. Upon an examination of the 
affidavit we find that the facte relate largely to the merits of the 
Litigation between the parties. 

The only question thet this court will consider is, did 
the defendant exercise diligence in moving that the court grant 
leave to this defendant to plead. The judguent by confession was 
entered on January 6, 1927, and ne steps were taken by the defendant 
until April 4, 1931, when the court entered the order granting 
defendant leave to plead. ‘hia order was entered more than four 
years after the judgment becase o matter @ recerd. The rule is well 
established that a motion for leave to plead should be made ot 
the earliest moment, This is ¢esential in order to evoke the juris- 
diction of the court. 

The defendant contends that in making application to the 
court for leave to plead to «a judgment entered by confession, it is 
improper for the court to hear and consider counter-affidavite upon 
the merits of the controversy. {hat is the general rule. The applic- 
ation for leave to defend is addressed to the discretion of the court, 
and calls for the exercise of the equitable power of the court over 
its own judgment, and it should not be exercised for mere irregular- 
ities or defects, and it would be unjust unless — good defense is 
shown. ‘hile » counter-affidavit controverting the defendant's 
prim, fpoie defense upon the uerits is not preper, still counter- 
affidavits may be entertained upen « motion to vacate a judgment 
for iesve to plesd, where the question is principally fer the court 
to determine whether it has jurisdiction to act softer term time. 

in the instant case the judgment by confession was entered 
seversl years before the order granting the defendant leave to plead 
was entered by the court. The important question therefore is one 
of diligence, and thet question does net go to the merits of the 


4 
eft to meltenines? ga magi wihoséiil gtedict te ———— ** 
od? * ‘dvs eff of plegral etalon nen — tade nett fe * —R 
· · ·· mt 95* om 
 daete tteoe edd ted? gakvow al seacglith eaiorene tunbaekeb edt 
aw Heleesteme qd tateghut ad? .beedg of tanbavtod abdt * av⸗s. 
sagbavtol add WW andes oxew eqpte on bag ,S82l ,0 qusutol no beredne 
—qixktmeny cokse ocd Dematew duwoo ost node y1OQE gb Lindh Lhe 
‘ue aad? som Dewetae sew cobte gitT bead of ovenk Mmahacten 
iow ai aie sd? .fxover ® vette » second tuomphuh od? tothe exeey 



























“at ot tage yubten nk tadt: shanianns A pe —— 
at #2 ysabeestnon Wl benetas dnompout 2 oF hentai a aiak e%, Seem 
nace ativehitieretaven teblenos hac seed of s1000 ste * neqorgad 

~olices #6? eles Invemeg edt a ded? sqereventaon edt to ethcom edt 
«ition ail? Is aolternsad ode of Pnanethhe wi davteh of oveel sot mokte 
20ve duet ad? to towoy edstiess edt %o optoxene sd? vot ideo bas 
| talugetts crea tot Seeletoxe ec tun idwede of Ame. <tacncybut 109 tt 
‘ai sensteh boog # easiau teutay od blwow $4 bus setosted we aakth 
atinebawteb att gaterevesteoe. shvwbsdtanrerace a ality .omods 
“staves iitte .reqery tom af etiven edt sequ comstoh ptog) guise 
‘tmsmyiot @ steaew of moiteg » ange. bateerotas ol all FA ADSI 
‘grwoo et cot Liectontug: af -nottequp ont oxedw abaale of. ovses. wt 
ould mis? tatte toe ot sodtedsetmot vad #2 xedtede satazeteb of 
bevsiee cow sodeestaco WW dmomydut Ott naa tuagend edt al 
fieoig of avsel dasbaateh edt gaisnerg 19hse odd, oxoted. SEARS laray 
and at vioteredt nottesup dnettegnt edt. #000 Odd ys boxotms som 
edt to etiam edt of ay tam 2beb aaiteonp tacit * — 
































4 
action between the parties, but rather to the exercise of juris- 
diction by the court. if the court's jurisdiction is limited, as 
contended for by the defendant, then the only auestion to be con=- 
sidered is whether the defendant has a defense. We do net believe 
that the court is thus restricted in ite considerstion of the 
questions before the court, but thet the court may in the inetant 
Case consider counter-affidavits to determine whether due diligence 
was exercised by the defendant. The rule ia stated in the case of 
MeGormiok v. Loomia, 165 Ill. Appe 314, in these worda: 
counteraftidseite or svidende fi seas instensea hese 
the question involved is « question for the court, purely; 
but it is improper to do se where the merits of the esse 


only are involved, AS the court cannes ory —* Ay in 
that manner. * oes Sionr beugh 







178 Ill. lea." . 

The court properly exereised its jurisdiction when ite 
attention was called to the feet that the defendant did not move fer 
lesve to plead for sore than four yeara after the judgment by 
confession was entered, Sy resson of this delay in presenting its 
motion after judgment wee entered and after it had knowledge, the 
defendant is properly chargeable with laches, ami the eourt heving 
jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, properly veested 
the order entered on April 4, 1931, granting the defendant the 
right to defend. 

The order in therefore «ffirmed. 

ORDER AFFIREED. 


SILSOR, P.J. AWD HALL, J, conguA, 


webu, Yo sedorexe odt of redder tut .6oktieq att aeanted settee 
an ,betimtl et sottotbadsut 'asvon edt. 32 «treme adt ys moneeth 

wa90 sé of aostanue ylne sd? aed? .tashastoh ed¢ yd sot bohasenon 
ovelied ton of oY .vagsted s and tnehasted od? sedtode wf botobhe 
ad? Ye moktershienoo ati at beteinteos eudt eh txuen eddotadt 

_ tinted edt at yu trees odt tadd gud ,deuse pdt exoked amaktonup 
— xb radios culexated of etivaditienxstaveo tehdenoe 9609 
to save od¢ ai botets af oles od? .tanbastoh ait yl Sealegene way 
inbraw ened? af gMS .ogs ofLh Gal — lapisae 








att ode — sta seasons, YAteqoty 79 : 
— tonsa of bon aay andeanttn 
ati gattaeeerg ai yoieh eidt Yo aoesey YE dont sew Rotenotane 
edt .egbelwead bed ti vedte ban hoveda® gen teomghul tedte sokhem 
aaived tuoe sit faa ,aedent dite oldemgeado yseqory oh Saebasteh 
detecey ylreqetq .tottem toegdue edt bam eehtrag ent to acktolbadsart i 
(Odd tanbanteh oda gatinany A8RL «> LetgA mo honedme cabo git 
— —— * 
— oh. at GWA alee — — 


We Misty 
— J— My sft 








CHM TETA HAGAO . 


ed ai eae Bar 


be Ty! — —— 2 
phe RIBAS Eee cece et Se 
a = 8 * —— aH 





SEYMOUR PRODUCTS COMPANY, a APPEAL FROM 
Corporation, \, 
Appellee, MUNICIPAL GOU 
Ve 
ILSON-WESTERN SPORTING Goons co — 
i i= RH SP G § 2 0 a + re 2 4 1 
a Corporation, Z 7 0 1 A © l 6 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

MM. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF TRE COURT. 

This is an appeai by the defendent from « judgnent entered 
in the sum of £2,694.36 upon a direeted verdict returned by « jury. 
The plaintifS's statement of cleim alleges that on October 10, 1930, 
the plaintiff and the defendant entered inte s sontract whereby it 
was agreed that the plaintiff should manufseture for the defendant 
25,000 special golf putters to be delivered within six months, for 
which the defendant egreed to pay 5O¢ each, the putters to be 
delivered FOB Seymour, Connecticut. 

The plaintiff in reliance on such contract, expended $550. 
for special tools and dies necessary to aanufscture such putters; 
that the sanufectured parts which were to be used for the putters 
amounted to $294.92, inbor, $505, and #500 paid for commission in 
obtaining said contract, and $750, being the profit on said contract; 
and sileges that it was ready, willing and able te perform, but 
that the defendant, on December 3, 1930 and December 9, 1920, refused 
to carry out its promise, to the damage of the plaintiff? in the 
sum of $2,694.92. 

The defendant by its affidavit of merits denied that it at 
any time entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff should manu- 
facture 25,090 special golf putters for the defendant at a price of 
50¢ each, and denied that it was indebted to the plaintiff in any sus. 





* a —— we 


m — ——— Pai: Boe he MA ins 





PRRUGS JAGIOLNRY |, 
sOOSOIRG 40 


‘ala AT OVS 


 g8eL .eS dotaM beLit aoiaiqd 
sto BEY WO ROLKIGO Bay ana Zam sama sorreat it 





j — 20008, 985099 aaa 








0 beotomg ot tao 468 ot eats Jxebaoted edt dod 

<O88 bokaeexo ,sectéso0 déue mo ‘inital’ ni Yeteedaty edt “uf Dire 
jevettuq dows Mruttatinse of ‘veseetoan wold ‘bas ioot telpeqe tot 
stedtuq edd tod hess ef of ovew dotdy etedy DozwtoeTiman odd Saild 
ai Aotenismed tot Bide OOF Dad GORE prddal cry “ betavoms 
ifeordnos Bice wo f£tong odd gated (oath Ris doerenen ‘bite getatetde 
tud yerottoy of Side bas yxtllte .yoeet ean #2 todd aegelis bas 
beavter ,OfGL .@ tedmeoet ban O8GL 4f nedmeoet ao inate sie * at 
Pann Tt re ee “rune of 
ence * * 

te th ted? betaeb ativen to tivebitte eth yd tdubmoted oft” — 
~unes Ainods ttitaiale ost weentaegenen «toni taenten alka 
to eeltg © és dashaated og rod exaxtuq YLog Jeteoqe 000,88 exwtost 
one YKS ak thitelelg adt of hetdebut aew st tedt bolaob bas 4f 


— ) 808 eh cl ‘ 
























The evidence of the plaintiff is by deposition of 
witnesses and documentary evidence attached to the depositions. 

The defendent offered no evidence other than an exemplified 
copy of the certificate of incorporation of the Wilson~vestern Spert- 
ing Goods Company, dated December 30, 1920, and an exemplified copy 
of the amended articles of incorporation, changing the name from 
the Wilson-\iestern Gperting Goods Company, organized in 1925, to 
the #ils@R Athletic Goods Company, dated March 12, 1931. The objection 
of the plaintiff to the »admiasibility of this evidence was suatained 
by the court. There was received in evidence 5 certified copy of 
the certificate of qualification of the Wilsen-Western Sperting Goods 
Company, to dco business in the State of Illinoia. 

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence and in order te 
conform te the proof offered by the defendant, the defendant asked 
leave to file an amended affidavit ef merits, which leave was refused 
upon objectiona made by the plaintiff. fhe defendant contends that 
the trial court erred in exeluding the defendant's offer of proof, 
and in refusing to permit the defendant te show that it did not 
enter into the contract with the plaintiff, in that it wes net 
incorporated until December 30, 1930, which was after the alleged 
Contract wae aade and bresebed, 

It is evident that the corporation known as the Wilson- 
®estern Sporting Goods Company was in existence and exercising its 
cerporate powers when it entered inte the contract with the plaintiff. 
No defense wes offered that the contract was not entered into or a 
consequent loss sustained because of the breson by the defendant, 

The ground urged is that the court erred in refusing to admit in 
evidence the certificate of incerporstion dated December 30, 1920. 
As a matter of fact, the corporstion named as the defendant tae 
ineorporated in the year 1925, and in existence at the tine the 
contract was entered inte by the parties. It is contended, however, 


to aniviveq@h yo ef Ytisnislg sd¢ to eoaeblive edt 
-aaoltiecgeb Of of bedontts ssmebivd qretmeiwoch tyes aegesingte 
heltssqnoxa an asd? rodto sonebive on herotte taxbagted oat 

ee? «retso"-nosll* ont to noltstoqrovad to etandtidess edt to yqoe 
e198 baktiiquexe a8 bua ,OS6L oe Tedesoed hagdah avenue? aboot gat 
govt oman edt gatgtede yaokteroqsoont Yo onlntdte bebusks sft to 
oF ,@8?i al healmenro ,yioqmod ebood gaterege nrosest-aoaly odt 
noltestde oat ‘beer: (At “teen “bothte ~yaaqmo? ebood otvelaga homily edt 
boaistave saw sonebive eldt to yetlicteatnbe off of vhtakede ad? to 
“39 yges bolttéxroo 4 seaeblve ai bevieoex kaw ered? “sPrwon ont WW 
aboot — ars ⸗ uar ·noäa to as nov itttoc * stuolizeree * 
salomtitY to etkee odt ai nasatend — ee 

of tbiice a han souebivs eettstiitacd fh 1 ate wad x” 
Hodes dmabasteh odd ytanboeteh od} yo bereyts Toowd ee of ineetadd 
beavter aw evant deidw — * — bebrens beatin of west 
tedt abzofaoe taahneteh oft Bide meq: 
gre: to qetto sttashasted adv ; 
Heit a tht waite ‘ot maotaors Sat — gerbe 





























—  serte ne dee OteL 2 Sha : 
thawte site ke nwolrd hetthreqzed ode cian haa 7 a ie bates 
«ett paketovexe hin sometatxe oh Ben eaeowo® abood | get Aa 
Witately of? Htiw fomttuos oda otnt beretme $1 aoe | uals’ de 
# to ott Sexetnd tom now tonttzoo edt tent? Boro! 
— nares ott ys donoxrd ad to sawnoed bentateste. ‘aot —— 
mt Phabe o¢ gatesoe 2 beets were out dit eX bog havory ods 
CBRL OE redmeed betab aéderoqrooat Yo stavdtttreo od Sadat 
“ped dachkoted edt ae henan soltexoqrod ‘eats tout we i — A P 
“ede antt od# to sonstaixe nl bie tel toby bit mt hegedeqhond) 
“iit ‘niin ich wit ceimibmiiey al ie mins eieaamial ae DA 

























3 

that subsequently the corperation changed ite name to the Wileon- 
Athletic Goods Company; that this company was the proper party 
defendant, but for want of proper service of summons the court was 
without jurisdiction to enter judgment. 

The position taken by counsel would seem to reat upon 
the theory that the defendant was sued as a party defendant under 
a wrontg name; that it should have been sued under the name of the 
Wilson Athlietio Goods Soupany. It is apparent from the record that 
the defendant failed to plead « missomer in abatement, and suffered 
judgment to be obtained. Therefore, it is not in a position to 
@omplain. ‘the rule is that when the party intended to be named 
in the judgment ia sued by » wrong name, the party so sued will be 
affeoted as though he were properly named therein, wnless he takes 
advantage of the misnomer by pies in abatement in such auit, and 
the Supreme Court in Pond v. imnis, et 2i., 63 Ili. 341, in applying 
this rule said; 

"It may happen that the name of some of the parties is 

ineorrectly stated. fhe weight of authority is, if the 

writ is served on » party, by a wrong name, intended to be 

sued, and he fails to sppeur and plead the misnomer in abate- 
went, and suffers } nt to be obtained, he is coneluded, 

and in all future Lithgation may be connected with she suit 

or judgment by proper averments; and when such aversents are nade 
and proved, the intended to be named in the judgment 


is affected as th he were properly named therein. freeman 
on J nts, sec, 154, 125. Reference is made te the cnse 
cited from 15 Ill. — Bational Bank v. daggers, 31 Mé. 
38; Ihe. Co. ve French, 18 Howard (Ne&.) 404; Smith v. 

Bowker, 1 Mass. 76; Oskley v. Giles, 3 East, 167; Smith v. 
Patten, 6 Taunton, 115; Grawford v. Satohwell, 2 Strange, 1218," 


See also Pennsylvenis Co. v. Zloan, 125 iil. 72. 

The defendant failed to file an affidavit of merits plead- 
ing a misnomer in abatezent, and the trial ccurt upen the state of 
the plesding was fully justified in sustaining the plaintiff's 
objection to the admission of the evidence, fhe amended affidavit 
of merits offered did not comply with the rule hereinsbeve mentioned, 


s 

-oellY ed? oF at e@t begitario aetteroo woe of? Yttaowpeedye tad? 
Viva caqeng O49 wew yRecmEd ELMt Font yuRamROD eboon SLeelAeA 
gay Feveo GY Bhowtive to Sbivise Thqbty Te Mew set tat \tasbasteb 
pene achetpe ee ee 
tise tees of meee Biver loamwoo YW abaet modtisey OAT 9 8h 
sete tambiasteb yoteg © eo bere eew Suahasteb edt gem qeoeds odo 
et? to auac ede tebe boyy weed ered kinede 7) rede pone gaete e 
beteYtics bag ,seereteds at tomommde « beeiq of hells? taebawteb edz 
of awatiesg # #2 tom wt Hi ,oxoteredh .demlasdg od oe — 

Rewer ef oF behartad vireo eo aede art ei elur of? ~ sake J 
od iiby bese oe "tray O8¢ yom Groene s Wt beow af daomphay oat a 
cbiiad ed cholte .atered? benuw Yleeqows Sxtw of Mguedd € bodostte 
tae .fiwe dowe ai teweteda at — @ towonndw odd te egetuevbe 
sahara ad = «£22 06 , dete ede — ee — — — 
⸗ Pw 8 oo oe 

WP epideoy a2 to emee to sone a ep es 

: he 2h gai vixodtue te My 


2s et ty eis Bealg fot 
—* — 














— Gt tt: Mealaten’ ee OF 4 
five out dtiw Letveance od yam colts 
chan ote eéuentors — wodu Sax jedwontove 


eHeo op hae - oben st — — 
ws lek ee Sex). 5 
v ¢ 
“wwidding jVOr'\sauk © ypelke ov yatled 4aPs 
“8185 aOgnaree & 4 ewdedae J E Ole 
oft wT eee snsoke «* 


~hoolg wttton Yo tivabskte as * of bakist teabastob ont ‘ 
te etate edt nog sxu0o Isic ost bas lag 
rrata tatg oda gatmtsteve | ah boutateat, Seiad som gaibanlg 
tkvebi?ts bebaona sdY .eonsbive odt to aotucists ait of aostoatdo 


Lh Oe 


shane ttape ovedaaiored elu ade tte viqnae., tos aid J 









& Sneew sav oer - Alipay shores 


The evidence fully susteins the conclusion reached by the 
trial court, and this evidence stands uncontradicted and unimpenched, 
and the court was warranted in directing the jury toe find the 
issues for the plaintiff and in entering judgment upon the finding 
of the jury. 

There being no error in the record the judgment is 
affirmed, 

JUDGHENT AFFIRMED. 


WILSON, ?.d. ABD HALL, J. CONGUR, 





ss 2 2 et ois gettoenth at 
fen Moin oh wens these heures eRe ee 
iil) dee * i a J— Biot J a ‘ei 
otto tee ee ey bus ooo ae iO ee ee 
eae ego anata lin aR A 
— tae gee ad soamea ae heely at ie a 
ae cee ieee: a eh dot ee PE 2 A ee 


beacon Be act Rabe oed yea ey aay a GIN Hk RY ER 




































yan 





et Site Bagh a oni 66 ge Aes 





. — Al Dea oe fears teak a 
Hoh foe Moke wh eeumdia ab ade — 
6 age we” 


Cage cae Be SR aT Re: Cake ey 





soe —— * 
ee me — WRT “hee i 
pee Ps ei Yeon ia wis Aesg Mee we 
Sai cane hy Om Real — png es — 

ie? 4 

Mihm Cha ome ovr . — ‘dave 
t Pigg Sav BAD Bhs Psi ed PA 
eee aK ar Rieiajanat “YU Rae soentas 
weed oo) ee Gehan ak Saba uid 9 ef 
wt ORE J—— — eee, fab i PRR 

at SPAR 66 pty — — 

ee: OME eee: AL JUS ge eas 
Neihine, styrarstts Fy kanndedanl es —— 


Ltt ceed ee eer’ ” — 


Hat L9 — Bro ha drendeeeae. ie: 











be —* goat aanu eaao inary ast * 


36056 r f 
JULIUS B. GINGBERG, GA 





PPEAL FROM 





Appellee, 
MUNIOIPAL Gov 
Ve 
BENJAMIN I. MORRIS and DAVID OF CHICAGO. 
LABOWITCH, 


Appeliants. 2 7 0 I As 6 1 6* 


Opinion filed March 29, 1933 

Mk. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OFIRICK OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judguent entered 
in the wunicipsl Court of Ghiesage in the sum of $543.75, recovered 
by the plaintiff in an action ageinst the defendents upon «a bond 
secured by a trust deed upon certain real estate therein described, 
Trial was had before the court without - jury, snd at the close of 
the hearing, judguent was entered as above stated, 

The defense to this action is that ss a bondholder the 
Plaintiff was restricted in bringing an action by the terms of the 
trust deed securing the payment of ssid bond, and that reference is 
made upon the face of the bond to the terms of the trust deed, which 
provided in effeet that the exclusive right of action wes in the 
trustees named in this deed; and as « further defense, the defendants 
faise the question of usury. 

The material provisions of the note in question are: 

senjanis io'usrriaraad’oavid taktedtany hath of Sisters 
40 bonds. * * ? For a full deseripsion of which and the 
scoured and held, reference is made to said deed of trust.* * * 

The question of non-negotiability of notes and bonds 
containing similar conditions to those contained in the bond in 
question, had been considered by courts of appeliate jurisdiction 


in this state, and the iatest expression of the Supreme Court upon 






ey os ORE aR MS Lt A 8 OT 
UO JATTOTAUZ 
we er conn 


OAR HG 


<910.AL0VS to > 


eset ec ——— — —— 
eTAUOO ANT WO HOLKIGO WHT CANEVIIGC aauun autrau in” 
berovae trams tot & wort etashest ed oi? qi iseqqa az ei aia? 
boreyooer ,2V.854? to mua aft at aguotdd te Pred Lag tele oad ak 
buod 5 moqy stnahested edt tankeas actdon ‘ne af ‘Witalesd oft 
sbeditoeeb ateredt statee Leet alettee ogy book turrt a yw bewowe 
Yo Sepde oft #n hue pete « tuoddiw ¢ruoo ed? excted had wow test 
sbotuse svede es Beretne ase taempbet canteeod ote 
| edt tebLoitbned 2 as tadt ef mottos aidd of sensteh edt 
eff to were? edt WW nelson an yatgated at betoltiest env titatelq: 
ah sotioreter ted? bar ,baod Bee to smenye od¢ yattwoes bead tout 
deidw ,beeb teaurrd oft To emred edt of daw ed¢ te ooet edt moqu sham 
edt of usy caltes to tigix svleulone od? sade toette al bebivera 
atantasteh ext ,onnsteb rottuyt « on han pbeeh add of Semen ootuuxd 
»¥terky Lo solteoup au⸗ eset 
eta Aelteexs mt stem edt to ato telveng ——— oe. 





¥ ae : 




















00. 
Otat odd fa Bee : : 
te seiten s to sito 
sete : 
m © *.deurd to hesb Dien of abea ai soneretor died 
ebsed Dre seton te YLitdaltoyea-aow te — oct. 
at buod ext ai beatetaoe scout of nuottibage satimte yal i 
aoitotharrut etaliequs Yo atmuoh yt hexsbienoo need bad toktesay 
nogu tc) ometqu® off Yo aotesonaxe teotel ont bre wotate elds at 


3 
the question appeare in the case of Pflueger v. Hroadwey Trust and 


Savings Semk, 551 ill. 170. 
in that case the court heid that «a recital in «a promissory 


note or bond, or a reference in it to some other instrument, in 
order to dettroy ite negotiability must be of such a nature thet 
the recital or reference to the other instrument qualifies or meskes 
uncertain or conditional the promise to pay, and if the note or 
bond merely recites that it is « part of a certain agreement which 
does not affect the promise to pay, it is negotiable. 

The bond in question sontains » promise by the defendants 
to pay a sum certain upon a fixed date. This bend was not rendered 
non-negotiable by the prevision in the note so as to qualify or 
make uncertain the promise to pay. Aeference is made in the bond 
to the deed of trust for a full deseription of the terms and oon- 
ditions under whieh the bond is issued. fhe anewer of the Supreme 


Court te this question in the case of Pflueger v. Erondway Trust 
Savings iar pre, is clearly appiieabie to the instant ease, 


and is, in effect, as follows: 


"Plaintiff in error’s argument that the debentures are non- 
negotiable is based primarily on the clause therein which 
 weeites that the debentures are issued under « certain trust 
agreement, ‘to which trust agreement reference is hereby made 
for = statement of the terms under which the said debentures 
are issued and the rights snd obligstions of the company, 
of the trustee and of the respective holders of the ssid 
debentures under the said trust agreement.’ flaintiff in 
error contends that this clause se modifies the unconditional 
promize te pay that it rendere the debentures non-negotiable. 
In order for the clause above quoted to render the debenture 
non-negotiable it wust be ef such a nature that it qualifies 
or makes uncertein or conditional the unconditional promise 
to pay. Whether this clause modifies the unconditional 
promise to pay must be determined from the writing itself 
and not from extrinsie evidence. ection 3 of the Negotiable 
Instrument act provides thet an unqualified order or promise 
te pay is unconditional within the meaning of the statute 
th coupled with an indication of a particular fund out of 
which reimbursement is to be made, or 2 particular account 
to be debited with the amount, or a statement of the trans- 
action which gives rise to the instrument; but an order or 
to pay out of a particular fund is net unconditicnal, 
If a prospective purchaser wanted to buy these debentures, 
he would, up@m reading them, first find en unconditional 





& 
bus four? yeubeors «vv Sesguihs T @ase ef? aL exesqge sodteoup eas 
ae. .OFL Lit 08 atl eens 
wroneduong a at Sadtoos  tath hod sxuce @:F Saul nade a 
ai ,@aeewrtent sodte aeee of #2 ai sonetetet « te . heed te eaten 
tate otutan » dove Ye od teum YLitdoivoged eth yoreeeh oF ywhee 
Rete TO waitilenp Pamuser deat tedte edd of senenetex ne Sedioes ed? 
ro 
doite tusmeorge atstrso 2 to #naq a wh $2 dad? pation yoxtn bacd 
: .... stidattogen at $2 4teq ot saimeny edt toute toa eead 
_einahaateb odd. uf sataen a salatacs sodsueup ah deed sith 
berabaet gon sax bacd ald? sted bonds s mou statt00 mua # Nan of 
80 Yilerp of ex oe ean, edt at soisivorg eit yd oid 
baod sdf ak sban ei soeesshor 1a of Sedmong ed? ahare 
scge as exnst aut Ye soktgdxoeed Lis 4 20% tans Bo bes ade of 
saeiges ed? te toweas edt -besged af bad et sods ‘ebay anoitid 
A 7 ean Yo cone tat santa aust, fred 
989 faetect edt ef sidactiqgn Yixaele ef .eaus X 
— see 


“Os 9TH — 94P toa tnaeusze Mitiadosee 
doldw asieredt eavelo edd Be tye . 


Fe ge a tebay ! ated 
bye ne oe —* 0 ei? doide alae —V 





























promise to pay a sum certain of money to bearer ah a fixed 
ie — 7—9 ois atten thie bo Be ye Re yee 
trust agreement for his rights under that egreements 

There remains to be considered the question of usury. The 
point is made in this case thet the court erred in denying defendants’ 
offer to prove certain facts besring upon the question of usury. The 
plaintiff was the owner and hojder of a negotiable instrument for 
value and before maturity, and it was necessary for the defendants 
to show that the plisintiff had knowledge that the bond at the time 
he became the liegel holder wos tainted with usury. The plaintiff 
was called as « witness under Section 33 of the Municipal Court Act, 
and eas esked the following question on behalf of the defendants: 

"Mr. Myerson: You knew, did you not, Mir. Ginsberg, 

—* 4 * houses were charging = cowmigsion for 
whieh upon objection was susteined, 

The defendants then offered to prove by this witness, sub- 
stantially, that it was common knowledge on the street that Greene- 
baum Sons investment Company, and other bend houses, charged ay sub- 
stantial commission for the sale of their bonds to purchasers; that 
the witness having purchased bonds from this Investment Company for 
upwards of eight years had notice at the time he purchased this bend, 
or acquired it, thet s sommiasion had been paid and thet it was 
a usurious transection. The offer te prove indicated the insdmiss- 
ibility of the evidence. hat commission wus charged in other 
transactions by this or other brokers has no material bearing on 
the question of usury in the instant oase, and the fact that the 
plaintiff purchased bonds from an investment company would not of 
itself indicate that he had knowledge thet a commission had been 
paid to the broker in the instant transaction. This court is unable 


leielel tome on — hen ae ee 
a teust o ¢ eonereter beteup edt 
——— Poy: old ide tee foelttz ton s%ob etusaadod 


oF ot nabeten tats rakes ——— — ——— 
ait iver to aeiiaenp ed? hetebiesec sd of aniames exes J Set 
‘ginsbaetad gaiyieh af derrs trues edd tate sano eidt at ebem ad taieq 
edt sytwey to Aotteoup edt mogu yaiteed etoct aietzee svete of TeXbo 
— mecuxeos oldetteyea 2 to tabjed bac xoccao off now Uiitasede 
“gtashaeteb oxy cot Yrecevons eew t4 has .ytduvtes svete Lae onkew 
 gmte orf? te Deed ocd Gadd Ggbeiword bed Trddudedq Oh tad? wate ot 
Yeitmtalg ot? serve dtiw dosatos now rohled Lagat edd omsood od 
teh Hod Laqtodawl od¢ to SE moltoot xotar eeentay # we heLLeo vow 
tuteskantsb off to Matted ae noleeewe gtiwoitet ade — 


tan wey bib ywert iP saat 
= Mtotenizas # galgisde ——— Seon sourod baad. suede 


— ,oeentiw aldt y@ avor of bevetie asd? etuahnateh eft - 
~tiga qe begieda ,e0eued baod teite bas .yKeqmed Saea@eavel seek aed 
sade gorves ve thant shakt be-eiaw oth git ⸗ 
nek YLsqueO trond asvz ait mex? eisot busatioce; guived oneatiw od? 
.baot abit Duvatoning or ontt off #0 cotton bed sxasy sitgle Ye: Abrorqe 
ew Vi Rods bam Bag Usd bat nokRedanOR ® tut tt bentupor x0 
~avinhant sid dedsothat every of tatio ea .colgeannexs aveliven 
xedto st deguaiie enw aedectance tsi sooabins ct Ro yetitet 
“ge yadresd — on had eraser rexit0 wo wiAe <S enodtonaner? 
; odd tne tout ont tus yonee tastes i arid ad yroen Re aodeueup edt 
Ye ton bivov Wwaquon sneateev! as moet ehnod bosstour: BtanteLa 
auag hott aeleainnoo » duds epbetwonk bad wf toad otnokbas’ 2Leegt 


olden ak Primo vaar ———— 









—* wd ¥ -t ‘ tia “y 3 t ds phe Pats fe tay 
*0 Re RE ea eae 


a 

to determine from the offer that the transaction was tainted with 

usury. The offer being uncertain, the trial court was fully 

justified in ruiing ee it did, Our conclusion is that the record 

is free from error, and the judgment is sccordingly affirmed, 
JUDGMENT APFIRMED. 


WILSON, Pod. AND HALL, J. CONCTA, 





ee ed sven ghey, Sar —— * 


—J Gi Fes i 












Pagani hee | 
CAE Sewae Se 
veleogaca’ a8 sean Rey —— ‘Bee | se —E 
gee doa Lag hegas: ads ee ae webwe seating rf 


cebinthaitee ah ‘he Towle se Keni 


et? a ae — gens 86 Bate eee dae a: 
Se Fe peaks — ee — fog 






— we. gevoned mie — bine 






aaron Bast naketiieon re — Pe 
wiieleny ak Shing Sa J— jer 0h —* 


- ae 
— “ * a 
— * anor" 
J ue 
é 









36231 Pi ade 
THE PROPLA OF STATL OF ILL Fa —E 
Befendant in OTs) i —“ 
ve. ERROR TO CIRQUIT COURT 


LIONEL A, SHERWIN, 
Plaintiff in Srror. 


In the Hatter of the Commitment of 
Lionel A. Sherwin, Pisintiif in Error, 
for Diract Contempt of Court in the 
case of Chic Title & Trust Ce., 
‘Trustee, vs. Sam Rubin et al., Cireult 


Geurt of Cook County, Jo. 8224973. 9 7 ieee 61 g 


WA, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeGURELY 
DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE GoURY. 


In certain proceedings in the case of Unicago Title & Trust 
Sos, Trustee, va. Rubin of gl., then pending in the Circult ceurt 


of Cook county before Judge Philip J. Finnegan, L. A. Sherwin, an 


¥ COOK COURTY. 


— —— —— — — ae 


attorney at lew practicing in this county, was adjudged in direct 
conte=pt of court and sentenced to confinement in the sounty jail 
ef Cock county for fifteen days. By this writ of errer Gherwin 
seeks the reversal of this order. 

The instances said te constitute the contempt are that 
Sherwin presented a paper te the court stating that it was a stipu- 
lation that he be substituted as attorney for certain defendants 
in lieu of certain other attorneys who were the attorneys ef ree- 
ord appearing for these defendants. The paper was not such a 
stipulation. This document ales purported te contain the signa- 
tures of these defendants authoriazing * A. Sherwin, in lieu of 
their fermer counsel, to enter their appearance, It developed 
that these defendante had net signed thie document. 

In a direst contempt the only resord required is the 
order of commitment, which must set out the fects constituting the 
offense so fully and certainly as te show that the court was 
authorized to make the order, People ex rel, Bain v, ¥einberg, 


266 111, App. 306, #The order must be considered as a true 


es — ———re — 


— — 


pe 


gy 


SP Oe ee ee Oe eT ee 






* — A eed 

ent a — yaa ony at 

te tasmdinaed sie to — ead al 

‘yeerta ab Tiléaiald ,aiwsed .A foaeld 
eas ab dragd te —— 

— goto fe migh | 


ora LLOSS. 0 eee 


YUNAUGoR AZQLEEUL omereaie oa 
~2hUOD ERY TO OLMTEO MRL GeAsV Lee 


— —— to ongo ose mk — ndostso J 








List waves os at tnomsatines. of besaesase bar * —9 orn 
aiwred® tore to tits abit ya Jeyah mesetit xt ym, x00 oo ; 
stobte aide Ye — esis oon 
tan? om Sqowtnos on? viwthianso of bat ‘etonetant oat — * 
-wqite o gew gh test gattete Pewee ond oF THgeg # botmsene aterodt | 
ainebaeted alatzes tot yeecotia aa bedudisadus ad on tnatd wetter | 
“98 ‘te eysarottea add ertew ost ayomiotda teido aletrey — welt at : 
& dove Joa aa saqeq edt atabavted evas 20 — ine | 
~sugie edt aialace of bedtoqrng os de Poem ob ele ite ig hs — 
‘Ye BOLE at alero ain .A. & patsbtontun afueince ted eandt * cont 
begotoved #1 .soterseqge ted) wetne oF — t98 ae abe * 
— — EE— ened? taut 














statement of the fuets. Eniesel vy. Urguea Motor Co,, 316 Ill. 336. 


the order before us recites that on July 15, 1952, there 
was heard before the court the charge of the direet contempt eom- 
mitted by i. A, Gherwin, an attorney end officer of the court; 
that the court gave lL. A, Sherwin the opportunity of presenting 
evidence, statements, preofs, explanations and arguments, of which 
Sherwin fully availed himsceif, and after having heard all the evi- 
denee #0 presented and such explanations and arguments, the eourt 
found that there wae pending and undispesed of in the court a 
proceeding in equity, entitled Chicago Title & Trust [o., a cor- 


al.; that David Plotniek 





REESE 





and Anna Plotnick, his wife, were with ethera defendants in said 
proceeding; that at thin time and for s ieng period of time pre- 
vious Isadore Isenberg and Michael &, Laenberg, attorneys of the 
State of Illinois, practicing under the name of Ieenberg & Isen- 
berg, were attorneys of record for said David Plotmick and Anna 
Plotniek in the aforesaid eause; that on June 25, 1932, while the 
court wae in seseion for the transaction of ite judicial business 
in the county of Gook and State of Lllinois, said L. A. Sherwin 
appeared before the court and presented to the court « paper en- 
titled "Substitution of Selicitors," purporting to autherize il. A. 
Sherwin to enter the anpesrance of said David Plotmick and Anna 
Plotniek in the ease of Chic 

a8 Trustee, ve, Sam Rubin et al., in lieu and in place of Isenberg 
& Isenberg; that Sherwin - 

"then and there stated to the Court that he was making a motion 
for the substitution ef solicitore in said cause and that he had a 
stipulation fcr such purpose and that the paper above mentioned, 
which he then and there handed te the Court, was such a stipulation. 
That by such representation se made by said Sherwin said Sherwin 
conveyed to the Gourt an‘ intended to convey to the Court the in- 
formation that such paper was duly signed by David Pletnick and 
Apna Plotnick and by the solicitor or solicitors of reeord in 


said cause for said Ploteicks for whom said Sherwin was then and 
there substituting his appearance, 





ee ee 





— 
es 





iy betve to. einemigTe har “anoltenniges ee seme rm Ce 
ive odd. iw proed gatved node bie ¶ihannta Bemtane oer = — 
ewes oxtt esuseente ban snolense taxa Mowe baw ha daonetg: “ os » 

a —E od? nt ‘te se fl ot ban patheng Lar ot id ¢ att i tomate 


ei bi L Het nea vane tea 1 gan $90: 























at ts —2 ——— — “cli a wer : ae 
‘tet a yrodnset ‘to beaa en? tebe pitettecke’, 1 pk LSE 
“Buea bie do Kae okt Diva bhed cot beeode te arin ore See’ 
add eLidw ,Sb0L ,e8 emvt ae tart jeeliee’ biagaee'ta 61 
‘eomtand telolbwt eff to wokionssnnd® ‘exe xéi 20! P : 
niweed®? A. bine |WRoALlLX Yo Stade baw ood “ — a ‘ 


ne Teekg a Fives off of bsdneaeta baw Ptwoe sad steted X beg 
vA Vi GaProidin of yattroqrug *,peodtolee te aodtue Heaue™ bors : 
arin bas — va Bla’ to —— sao <egne “od ak 10 * 





aghiom 2 galsel Baw ; shit Prwod ead — * ‘se sae teas bua’ ee 
bad of sat Daw onpas ot 9 
* suse syvods Behe eyo | Ra kueghs 


 &, 2G ee poe 

wink BOO orig 
bas — ey — ie yt od 

or ke ened oe TO. 

we abwreda —e et 6 













aaah! | 


ead meat 


That thereupon and then and there said Michael NK, Leenberg 
appeared before the Court and questioned the right of said respond- 
ent to substitute himeelf in place of said Ieenberg and hie brother 
as solicitors in said cause Yor esid David and Anna Pletnick, That 
thereupon the Court asked respondent if David Pletnick and 4nna 
Plotnick had sisned sald substitution eof selicitere se presented 
as aforesaid to the Court and said respondent then and there stated: 

That sald signatures were the genuine signatures of David 
and Anna Pletnick ond after further questioning by the Court then 
and there stated that the signatures of said Yevid and Anna Plot- 
mick had been attached to eadd substitution of solicitors by one 
Lyons, the son-in-law of said David and Anna Plotnick, 

The Court finds that the representations so made by said 
respondent te the Court at sald time were and are, and were known 
by said Gherwin to be false. That neither David Plotuiek, Anna 
Plotniek or said Lyons signed the names ef David Plotnick and Anne 
Plotuick te said substitution of solicitors soe presented to the 
Court. 

The Court further finde that the said Isenberg and Isenkerg 
aid not sign sald substitution of solicitore or any stipulation in 
regard therete and then end there made the glaix dn Court that no 
proper notice of the application of eald Sherwin to the Gourt for 
an order of substitution of selicitore had been served upen the 
atteorneye of record in said cause for eaid David and Anna Plotniek. 
The Court finds that ne proper notice ef such application was given 
to said attormeys of record by said Sherwin. 

That auch conduet of sald L. A. Gherwin in misrepresenting 
the true facts to the Court tended te deceive the Court and consti- 
tuted a direct contempt committed apen the Court in the sresence of 
the Court and while the Court was in session for the transaction of 
Judicial business ant that the acts of said L. A. Sherwin conati- 
tuting such ecntempt terded to impede and ebetruct justice in sald 
eourt. 

The Court further finds that said L. A. Sherwin, whe is new 
here present in open Court, is, by reasen of the aforesaid conduet 
of said L. A. Sherwin, guilty of a direet contempt of this Court in 
epen Court." 


The burden of plaintiff in errer's brief in thie court 
seems to be that the evidence and explanations he presented to the 
eourt did not fustify the finding of facts in the order. Hovever, 
as no bill of exceptions is proper in # proeeeding of thie sert, it 
is imeaterial as to what evidenee or arguments were presented to 
the trial court. We infer from the brief of plaintiff in error that 
the acecalled evidence eovsisted merely ef matters «hich the court 
permitted him te present as tending to explain the direct eontempt 
which had been committed in the presence of the court, Plaintiffs 
in errer told the court that the paper he was presenting wae a 
stipulation te substitute attorneys, but when the paper was examined 


gtiduesl 6k Lecdote Blas axed? bum moth — goad 

»beovaes bies to sayin edt heaoiteews tan tues — od Sead dae 
tedéerd eid Ama qredwast plea Io geaig ak Bleania . 

taat hise & ———— 88 


mth ban aohagels bivead 2h # spohseqnes st. 
hadosaotq on otetiokios te aeitni cick) feasts le 


ihetehe wand? baa nade ¢ et Abwe bas txued od? 99 agesel ne 
hive ‘to Reo age. ple ie wm * Gil ag 8 — ar 
‘ead Ite & aGup Wola? Ts Be. Ca 
«fel aanA bos bived bh yr te seuviengia edf dent begere ae * 
pee ed erodlaisos ‘Le — * — ———— — 
tt cy * ok 
etd F as Meo a 


















okagel% ena bas bivat flaw to sats Be mh 
pian yd sheen. Bit ade thas negasaes eye Pg reer 
nwonk er8¥ bas ie bate wtew aalt blew @4 3% 
 gamk plokatedh bival tedtien gextt Poot yp ped 
aaah hue dolagei’ bived ‘te aemnn 40 boayle eRoyt 


oat of bo domsetq oe aretigiive to noltuditedue | bow * —— 
* 


gpredaesl hae agredmpel hiss ofa dads ehast. by pete | 
ai agldaingisn yar 49 wig al 9 ae buat ——— a tr af ede 







on fed? dxwoG aioatelo 947 aban ei 
tot gated oct of niwredd biee te me st ten bE 
eae neew bevees. —— Re. aod — ted 
: wip batest gush bag bivel bles tet sexeo blee Toy : 
Meby weer soldsviteqe dowa te seiton toger% on ks J 


ulwtedt bine yd htop t ve . Maret 


— i ot 
— — — ak, phweeté, A. dk hdas tod Mae Fags, Be 


haz #209 e623 evieeeh of hebass P45 

‘to sunpaemy ont ah Sxu0d O03 eon eaw fra 8 — 
%o soliossmets ed? scot seisase al eew drug? 

whtsaon tiwreds .A oi bhaw Yo ates eelt ¢ 

bios at soldat joustads bas obequt of —5— 


wet at arte .A vt bias dart aba goad * eae” 
doubnoo Slaseiots off 1s aopmen Ys, * 
ab —* ane te — toeith 3 0 koe | 









et? af Aatavanrq 9 angksageiqne bag soamhive oe sacs od OF omace 
evereh. tebve vet ah aton't te arth ant xtitant, ton * i ) 








eo besaoeorg otew abe a9 eed asi tedemouk 
— at Tkigntely to Yelxd at ————— ‘twee, * 0* 








——— tema — ot ants na ‘dansone o¢ ata bods tan 
‘i ov aoꝛraooeoia aan a wa on dt a * 1 odd bigs : 


* 


— 


fuwen aiid at waked stanse. ad ROI ma oa J 





it was found that the attermneys of record had not signed it. 
Plaintiff in errer must have known that a stipulation arcane an 
agreenent, signed by all the parties concerned, and that when he 
presented a paper not signed by the counsel for whom he was seek~ 
ing to have himself substituted, and represented to the court it 
Was a stipulation fer thie purpose, he made a false statement for 
the purpose of deceiving the eourt. 

The order also shows that plaintiff in error represented 
that the signaturesof Yavid Pletnick and Anna Plotnick on the 
paper purporting to be a substitution of selisiters, were the 
genuine signatures ef Savid snd Atma FPlotniek, but that subse- 
quently, on being examined, plaintiff in error adwitted that these 
were not the genuine signatures of these persons, ‘The court there- 
fere found that thie representation was false and known te Sherwin 
te be falee, After it head been made to appear that these were not 
the genuine signatures of David und Anne Pletniek, plaintiff in 
error then claimed the signatures were made by one Lyons, a son- 
in-law of said parties. The court feund that mone of these par- 
ties signed the name of David Plotnick and Anna Plotnick to the 
substitution ef solicitors, 

Plaintiff in error is an experienced practitioner at this 
bar, and, anfertunagely for tim, has mere tusn once been found 
guilty of contempt for indulging in tricky eonduct. it is a com- 
monplace to say that atterneys muet deal honestly and truthfully 
with the court. Failure te do this merits punishment. Courts 
have inherent power te cumish for conteupt committed in the oresence 
of the court and may deal with the offender without hearing any 
evidence, People vy, Andalman, $46 111. 149, Plaintiff in error 
has cited many cares but none of them is eontrary to the rules of 
law we have stated, 

The order of contempt shows a simple case of false statements 





4 os ane ‘ent smote. aot. feannes ast ow — ton equ ll — 

$k suo ose oo bodmanetaes hom: ‘beaueltedue Anaad ovat of ant 

tot daemmsnce geist * shave od — asoqrag. abs tot woldatugtod a — all | 

, — ——— odd gabrtose h te — we nia 
hoarasorent rect. ab. Tibtanesg | ed avasta gale vobre sat — 

¶ldaati aaah on M taioti hive Tesonutarle oh tae 

alt ogee ~acadiniiog to mohtutisadue # od of gaberodts 

_atadun tasit sust sdodatess anak bas dived to * vem mite eindeintg 

ond font: ne aetaba nome au mieaisa ag ben innne re * —* — — , ; 















Sea axow pons dacs xasgee * “abs none ast #2 ong * 
Vuaialo efoto zl mau! bmw Rew? Vo: otnen ony 
ame a ,aneys eno yd hen orew aetudomgte oss bomtats ads cones 
o wanda to sage dade bawe't J amt etna has’ to 


stb ot Sednded’ anak bas eintett biwed te eann ont ninja eel 
ete holion te woltud sedue 


J 
J 





sid? $4 toncdsifenta been iuequs sa ak sovEh al Teigedere OO 


ows? seed come sae? ete aed ,whil vO? eiotanotretae baa —— 
omg Bah al .toubsoe yuckia m2 gaigtubied OR! debs “RO ehLEiig” 9 
—2— — 
euhe an mais Anuuch ebte ehAe Ob wd athe .otee odd ‘abe 
- weneqetg sah a Best banee. Seams mes Tot detainees wetted” Sawrodal — 
i yaa gadions tueds iw ehne te ec Attn tae yaa Hd suitor “dt ae 
— ab YLisuiel® 002.545 O80, namtehiod ov cages” ‘eonehivs |” 
to anit of ererinoe ak ment To enon sud weven ‘Win st wed is 








J Coe 


made for the purpose of precuring an order from the court. Ye 
gee no reason to disturb the judgment, and it is affirmed, 
AFFIRMED, 


Batehett and O'Connor, JJ., concur, 










— ea: ae 
aa * ane be 
ai. eee seb 


oa. pee 






————— rent ob ak Prk tut wate td 
eg) ee ———— — ‘st, dana abt at r * 












dein ge — sexes. dane wnt 


ie Widbabeke Rinber 2 at. ed 





AG, @ — aE & 





Se Loe — * — —— sabi othe oe 





\ 


PEOPLE OF THE STATS OF ILLINOIS, 
Defendant in Wrror, 


va. 


HATTI£ JOURS, alias JOUNGOR, 
Plaintiff in Errer. 





i i 
270 I.A. 6116" 
A, PRESIOIBG JUGTICE MeSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THK COURT. 

An information was lodged, charging defendant with enecourag- 
ing Elizabeth Bethke, a female person sixteen years of age, te be- 
come a delinquent child in that defendant harbored her for the pur- 
pose of prostitution. Upen trial by the court defendant was found 
guilty and sentenced to one year in the House of Correetion. She 
seeks a reversal in thie court, 

We meed to notice only one point, aamely, whether the charge 
Was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The complaining witness, Uilisabeth Lethke, testified that 
she went to the apartment of defer dant at 4684 Vincennes avenue, 
Chicage, with a br. Lester; that defendant told wituess she was 
"te go to bed with a fellew;" that she did so and had sexual rela- 
ticns with a man at defendant's place, fer whieh she reeeived 33, 
and gave 31 te defendant and $2 to Lester; tat this was the enly 
man with whom she had sexual relations at this place; that she 
stayed there three days; that she saw other girls there having sezu- 
al relations vith other men. On cross-exemination the witness said 
her home was in Wilesukee; that she came te Chicage te leek for work 
and wae taken by a fellew to a room on 47th street and stayed there 
with him for about two weeks; thet afterward she was taken by Carl 
Lester to a place kept by Mrs. Willie and stayed there with him for 
about a month; that afterward she went to a place on South Parkway; 
this was before she went to defendant's place; that she came te 
defendant's place about noon with Garl Lester; that there were also 
present the defendant, a ir. Johnson ond a Mr. Taylor; that Lester 


RLOARLAT 9 HEATS eat —* ase 
—— vd tosh xe ‘toe 


MR Ue oie: Gaia 
ae Rae 


6 " a sake e — 
—E— af Yt italia lt 





‘OTD ETOss 


parity | ROITE UG datexdage’ ~~ 
.TAUOU SHT TO HOLEITO AAT CaARVIUG 


“Ee LHe me — fambaeteb gaigtade ,begbel agw neleaacateed wh ’ 
ond of ,0ge to ateny neetcte avaieg slaast a ,etdeot adedari te gat 
tug est xot ted botedsed taahaeteh gad? al bilds fe wp Lom a — 
bawot ear taabasteb Suuae esi yd Lala? aogl Soltis Lteotg, a ened 
esi .meitogixe? to eawol eff ak uawy ae oF sesaninee: ol wie 
i .ttuoe skit af Lawceven , 
eguade ent tedsedw . yearn peri eae gine soiiga of ees, — 
diwed oldaansaon — bao mene a 
. tage bodtizees ,eddted Aftedemiid ,seeadiw gals . 
,euaeve aannpeal’ G48 fe tasdoo'twd te call ade of ie ~~ 
 gaw ode eeeatiw blos taabhaelad — pips aed th ew mee: “soue0 fat i | 
aaiet Leuxon bad bas on bth ors sad "ye list a ithe bed ot 09 08" 
28 hevieoss en dolde 10% ,oneliq s' saebum led ta mm & dghe anions Es 
wing edt saw eidd tant proteod of § baw saahne tod oe oven bas 
ode fedd joonly elds ta shoilelot — basi ode. reenter sie ao 
: | ouxoa gaivad exedd eitiy todto was erly dad? jeyab: ants exec? hoyate 
Dias aneutinw est? molsaslanxe-anoty 89 . nom Tedte. atie anettader. is . 
dtew t9% tool of ogaoind of cman one Fant poo kuewLEs * eee snodt ot | 
aveds Soyeta bas doonta AGV) mo moot a2 of wolfe? # ww moles eae hae 
{480 yd odes sew ode htawred’ta sacs jedoew ow? funda rot had. i 
tot mid ugiw oredd haqete ban OLLLLY ork yd Jona eonta «. at sede 
rwartxat dtved mo woalg 2 of tan ode bromede oda 
of emac brie suds joasig &' dandasted ed dame aite aroted | 
( gake exam oxont todd ptoteed Lad Adiw noem tuo te 
osbied tout rxoiyet .t « bow conndiol .th a , 


ee icc —— 
oe Peete it 

















left her there, saying that she was "to stay there and hustle; * 
that the man with whem she had sexual relations at defendant's 
place was a Chinaman whem ehe had never seen before; that defendant 
became angry at her and witness moved out; that defendant tela 
Lester that she, witness, “wae a dope fiend and he would have to 
move out." 

Defendant testified that she had lived at 4858 Vincennes 
avenue fer seven years; that there were three bedroome in the 
aparteent, one cecupied by herself and the other two reome eccue 
pied by a kr. Johneon and «a Kr, Taylor; that she had been arrested 
twiee by officer Goldstein but was never convicted; that Carl Lester 
drought the complaining witness to her home, saying he wanted a room 
for himself and wife; that defendant told him she had no room; they 
stayed about fifteen minutes and left; neither of them every re- 
turned again; that beth Johnson and Tayler were present at the time; 
4efendant asserted that che hed never rented sa room at any time for 
immoral purpeses and that no Chinaman bad ever visited her home; 
that she saw the complaining witness only this ene time and that 
she never stayed at her heuse and never remained for three daye; 
thet she was there ret over fifteen minutes juet one time, 

Johnsen testified that he was a painting contractor and 
roomed in defendant's apartment; tuat he saw the complaining witness 
when Lester brought her te the house and asked fer a room for him 
ang her; that they resiemined there about ten to fifteen minutes, and 
the witness never saw her again; that the only roomers in the house 
were the defendant, Taylor, and himself; that there were no girls 
in the house, 

Tayler also testified, saying he waa present when compisein- 
ing witness came with Lester to defendant’s apartment; that Leeter 
said he wanted a reom for himeslf and his wife; that they were there 
enly about fifteen minutes, and that Elizabeth Bethke was not there 





oat 
“yalteud baw onedt yete of" taw one ‘dans aolkyen erent ‘an ne 
@anbno'teb te etotie ton Lanes hod wile mocty age cont okt a mek 
taabesteb dadd (Ptoted ares 19ven bad sete soe —R a saw +0 ate : 
Sloe Inahsetoh gets ptu0 bovom eueneiw: bas ot ree —— 
J ered blgcw od Bae bag dt ayoh « sow” ,waeadiv ,ode ted? tateod 





| , * 200 exaa 
eommeni¥ St) bul ReeRs bad bce badly MERGES RMR 4 
- gif a2 eabested setuid stow omeris sand permey eevee cot sumeve 
“e966 CHOOT owe dediG ocd bow Bheuned yd beleieo-ene ,teeeetage 
heveotts Med be oie fens profyet .1 & Bae adaasiat tw ed Bake 
sete fund tal? phetolvaes t080 Baw dul Aedencod: weſ⸗ 
woot @ Sotaew oof gabyee ,emod Ted of neenstw guiahetquos’ oad taguote 
godt papot ea best oc mid bho? Jandoe tes fede ye The fi toad ee 
| =e QHOVO maT To Tedtleom ;PIL ine eetwhike mCP deen hoynde 
jam? ed? ta Jnonerq etoew rofyal: bin sonetiot- need said pikowa heme 
Tol emt yan Xe moet s bednwT vevER bad och fest betebegs daebasted — 
jemos ted bedhely Tove bes ammenlad of Jem? hae wowedg use tacomal 
tas Sow emt? ong eke ELao aeentiv gataletqmes ent wee” ede tout ue 
-,eyeb’ewest vot boutenon coven bie! shut Cel da bognte tevem ent 
Salt eew ganl soteiha cose tt sere Fon otede eew ere tet ‘ 
bea tedoattase galtatag » saw en ted? Bettitesd aerndel © Pigs, Mabe ; 
eecurinw galtkaiquos off wae of tans pomiabeege at daebae teh ab bomoot 
Mi, tel moet @ LO Dekow Bre eecedt am? od god TeQwowst wesent mpshe 
bay ,aeduate mestli of wot tuods exe? Seoniemet yous Gant pont beue 
Sewer eAt Hb etesoor Ylao ONT Cent yRbe_e ww wae’ TeveR eeeadiw at 
@hets om axe ores? Sand | Tigewts ban ,setya? rT wast 
aMislguon nbitw taeenxy eow eA gaiyor ‘cotinine aa ———— 
woseet Fad {eaoastage of Inebinted 9 weeEsT Mitty oid — 
—X orow volnn taut zort ele baw ToeaNtd tot moee  Besnee ait bhae 
eter? Vow exw ekdted HbdpEdte arts baw 58 * et Quote Yao 
setied teats prodynt .44 2 Soe wend at we wi ont «teh ait aaunn 









three days, and that mo girla were ever there for immoral purposes. 
Thie witness said he was a helper to Johnaon with contract paint- 
ing work and also helped around the apartment and generally knew 
what was going on; that the complaining witnees never went to bed 
there with any man. 

The testimony of the complaining witness is not convineing, 
She was admittedly a young wesian of loose habits, taking up with men 
promiseusuely and living with them at various places; there is a 
suggestion in the testimony that she was a “dope fiend,* which 
probably explains, in part, the uncertain choracter of her testimony. 
On the other hand, the testimony on beislf of defendant is positive 
and unequivocal to the effect that complaining witness ware at de- 
fendant's apartment only ene time, and for a vewy few minutes, 

In the face of this record it cannot be said that the 
Quantus of proof was sufficiont to sstablish defendant's guilt 
beyond all reasonable doubt. 

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, 


REVERSED AND REKABDED, 


Batehett and O'Gennor, J7., coneur. 





eoaogtug latound 20% atedd Tove eto elthg om duds han aweeh onndt: 
-ttley Joe kage. shy apentio’ 94 anqhod » new od bee enondhw adsl | 
em Lote baw PoReteRe ot domes Hopton onde daw alzow gah 
hed of fagw teved seeat iy grlalodaqmem ede ——— 
ang gee eb oetedt,— 
piienivacy tom wi sventiw yalalalqmos eff to yroaltasd oth: ee 
wom déiw av gubiad pedidad seeol Ye anzuw yauey a Ybeddiaka eaw ont ‘ 
4 ob eres? resoale auadtay de madd ithe gabvhl pas yiawutpadaong 
, Made * bnokt egek” « eae ose dmsip. morta? aid mh — Me 





a —— — — ash pase — ñ 









; — eer we 50h Bee — 


beo iaeer wae 263 Sam, — some oa seve 
RG LAER RRA TAGaAvae — tine ip ton Riis We 2 ait aah Rtn | 
mtd eet — BN Ge ES ont. est — 
———— a ae 


y ania ‘ “a ‘ vena xe mee are * vo Was. Ane 
OMG Sah SS Ee SE a ERR ES aah tea Bae dats iF rev oy taba Sabet a 
; ‘ 


— 





4 — ‘tty wh brea | 
b ayaa ee hie Pe ns tol Ge esd Ey tae 


t 
* 
Abe 

wee 


i 
— 


on Ne 1d a . ae é oe ae vi Wo dita Da Lae —— 
— D————— pve Be ween 9 teh 2S Eel ag et “SSA Sree 


Ree e Deke. thereat eee e? Poeele es  RReER ee: Rae 


oun erin of 4 4 yea a Fae ae y a a £ —44 
ato! Bia we teres Mi Ree 


36422 


JOSEPY SCHNSIDERMAN, 
Appellee, 
a 









‘APPRAL ¥ROM CIRCULT COURT 


ves OF COOK COUNTY, 


HOKE BANE AND TRUST CO., a 
Cerporation, et al., 


— — ———— — — — 


(Def cndantes. ) 
On Appeal of ELLSWORTH Tf, MARTIN yr ; / ‘ 4 
Appellant. | & g U A othe @) 1 7 


BR, PRESIDING JUSTICE McSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


This is an appeal by the holder of a second mortgage 
from = decree of partial foreclosure of a first mortgage, pursuant 
to the bill te fereclose filed by compisinant, alleging the default 
in payment of three interest coupon notes held by him aggregating 
$1400, 

The bill to foreclose the second mortgage was filed July 
31, 1931, by Blisworth T. Martin, the appellant; August 6, 1941, 
complainant filed his bill to fereclese; by stipulation the two 
Gauses were consclidated. The question presented en this appeal 
is, whether the complainant wae the corner of the uncaneelled coupon 
interest netes described in his bill to foreelose, the defendant 
asserting that these notes had been paid. 

The first trust deed with notes, for 450,000, was executed 
by Wolf Cowen and Fanny Cowen, his wife, for a loan made by the 
Lunmbermen's Mutual Casualty Company; the evidence tended to show 
that complainant had leaned $1500 te Erwin Cowen, reesiving his 
note indorsed by his brother, Harry Cowen; these men are sona of 
Wolf Cowen; this note matured in April, 1931; complainant made 
numerous demands upon Erwin Cowen for payment, without success; 
he then sought payment from the indorser, Harry Cowen, at first 
without success; finally, in August, 1951, Harry Cewen obtained 
the coupon interest notes of the first mortgage of Wolf and Fanny 
Cowen, whieh matured in June, 1931, by paying the Lumbersen's 





ise 


0 iota A ge * pee 


— SR soca gas 


 & ¢289 TORRE waa. terested 
pee * a 
( adumbes ted) . CIB Ae yates 


HTT RAM —9 —S— * —— mo 
—“ si 





Yumue. aOTTeuy OulCTemNT Lak | 
—— SR? to HO TMILIO | ane Canny ea 


opang tom baoave & te tebLod ass ye Leogas ae at eu 
S neweewe ane TOM garckt a to axusologsa? iniamg. 20 eonash * oe 


tinveteb od? guizetia ,tacalatgnos yo beth oneLoore?, of ag oat as: 
gal sagetsgs ala xe bhest Seton —“ e⸗a aat eora⸗ 


— Rs * 8 * * 










— best? eae ayssit08, bapoee. — 9 —— i * — 
euenn zecie LIs gan eit atin J SOME LEK xs * 
ows ecg aolialuglie ‘Yd pometoo tot J fire he, beta — 
⸗⸗o ac⸗ aids se bodusae tg Beliagup ost detabhioaace rr198 Be. i J 
saquge ‘pelfooasaay oft to Teowe edd saw as ata emee eat teditede ae 


Suehee teh off ,aeoioe ts? of 4440 ada ad 








blag. mod bast entan cpevomy bigs 
hedugoxe naw ,G00,08% tot ,wegoa dtiw bee fawxd sect edf saa 
ent yd ohm seot « cot ,e'liw eld wowed vans fas aewed tet “7 
worm of bobnes comhive eft ;ynaqmed ytlanesd feugait a! marco dian 
vid gaivieost ,newod aiwil of O081$ Reneok bed tanntalomen saxtt 
te anos ote nom eusit ;aowed yous ,xedsexd ald yd bestebal egen — 
| obac trsaialqmos ;f60L ,Liagd al betudem oten atid pmewod ‘LLeW 
jeesooue tuodsiw ,saemyaq tot mowed cibweli sous ebaassh SvoTemwe 
exit ge ,mewod ytrel ,soetebal ed3 mot) tasayaq segue nee «. 
boutatdo mowed vena ,f00L ,faugud af ,yfieakt jreeooum juedtiw 
Kane Bes TL0W to sysgetom sextet mats to soten tuotesal aeaues oat 
a! manedant edt? gatyaq ed ,f60L ons ak botutomt dadsw 10) a y “ 





_ Mutual Casualty Company the amount due thereon and receiving the 
notes frou the cosipany uncaneslled; Harry Cowen thereupon of- 

fered to giva thase coupon netes to the complainent in payment and 
satisfaction of his liability .om the note of Erwin Cowen; som- 
Plainant acospted this erepesition and received the coupon interest 
notes and delivered the rein Cowen note to Harry Cowen. The book- 
keeper and cashier of the Lumberwen's Rutual Casualty Company tes- 
tified that this coupany wade the loan te Voif Cowen and still 

owns the principal note seeured by the truet deed; that the coupon 
metes in the pessession of complainant represent the interest 
falling due June 12, 1951; that this interest wae paid in full 
August Sth by Harry Cowen and the notes were delivered to him at 
that time, 


When the complainant produced the netea in question upen 


the hearing, presumably he was the ower. Peulner v. Gillan, 
216 Tll. App. 85; Heury vy. Eddy, 34 i111. $06; Curtiss v, Martin, 
20 Til. 557; Rew Haven ete, Co. v. Hew Haver 





76 Senn. 126; Srannan, “Jegetiable instruments,” 4th ed.,p. 243. 
The crucial gueation is, #hen Harry Gowen paid the Lumber- 
men's Mutual Casualty Company the amount due on these notes and 
received them unesneelied, was this payment or a purchase of the 
notes? Certain anseects suggest persuasive grounds for enter- 
taining & suspicion that Marry Cowen paid these notes and 4id not 
purchase them. However, upon the naked record we are constrained 
te held that the traneaction was a purchase, “If a bill or a nete 
is paid after its maturity by a stranger to the paper, it will in 
general S¢ held te be a purchase and not a payment of the instru- 
ment." @% Corpus Juria, 586. This ie supported by citations of 
cases from many jurisdictions. In Dent v. Matthews, 202 Mo. App. 
451, it was held that where a third party furnishes the ceneidera- 


tion fer the surrender of a note, even though done at the inetance 





PRS, 


edt gutviseet hae aoetads end tavems offs qahgaed — —2 it 
nogueter meres vital 7 he Lie omnes Yaaquoe and, mox't seton 

baw faseeeq a2 dnuaie Lgnoo ot of addon aogyad omen awke, ad bore? 
<moo yaAewod abweil te ston add mo) géhiigwd? eid 20 aoktas tothes 
tacsetat sequos est bevigost bas ndtdtadqors’ obit feiossoa daantite 
hood eat -newed ytrall ot ofon mewod ab wit ests ‘pervert ion Bae aedon 
~def YRAquwey Ye Lawead Leusui a! ( moacxe dime, and * ꝛe Ans as baa regen 
iitie bas meso LkoW' sd ‘mod edd oham va⸗anot “whee —— do xrat 
—* eds Sake {00d sand edd Yd Seitode ohea Lagionite welt avo 
‘feetedad OF Suosdtest snadtalgned Le adteReteg’ say ‘ak i 

bho Sto me bkag enw Geotedad alee todd) seOR [Rr ead oah gatera? 
| intespsieitaiabenitaniintatied tial eeaied aiilivias 
ome — 

\dogy molinews ab ester sad deoubeny — — eat aoe 
panes wants dt 

eee a, be ee: —E — — at ORE iiited "Ie 

— Clay ended ‘Cera aedt (ak eee aed eat 
bas eegon ound? ao ouh Sewomm oct yYosqued ytaved Lauda tiie 
Sete Bo een teteg & to Pusuyed ids eaw \helisouzedy asdt hevioost 
Jtegie tol ehwety ev ianwexsy teopyne avovrna alee16o * Tweden 

ton bit baa eetow oavdd blaq awed ‘greal Yadd sobs teacs Sh ail 
pedisitenoy ets ow Piece boden ois adqu’wovewol ©’ jails Wied 
efor # to Lid « TI" owatiowwg @ ea Moktewenens Wine re 
st (fie 92 \xoqny edt oF wegaetts o yd ee Proe ae st corr bid 
awttent es ‘to soemgey & som brew emedonuy a odes Biot od Lately 
Yo amaretto Ys bervoqquy at sie 888 ei ee — — — 
gh ‘sol LOR a Pia ai vemolsoiin bent; gama i 
-oveKhenso ont ebilobee't yori betKy a wcentw tally bie aw a a e 

sone santk Sue te oHob salons Dove \>tod W Yo! aehutehe ‘eit 40 He 
























of the maker, and the note ie delivered over by the holder te the 
third party, the presumption is that a purchase aad not & payment 
wae intended, In Stark vy. Senerf, 207 S. W. 863, it waa held that 
where a etranger to the instrument paid the money it became a 
question of intention whether it was in payment of the note or in 
purchase, among other cases holding that payment for the reeeipt 
of a note by a stranger ic presumptively #2 purchase and net payment, 
are Citizens’ Trust Co. v. Caddick Milling Co., 210 4. YW. 774; 
Peoples State Bank v. Dryden, 91 Kam. 216; Cantrell v. Davidson, 
180 Me. App. 416; @ Un Cent Life ins, Co., i181 He. App. 
361; Brannan, “Negotiable Inetruments," 4th ef., 9. 782, 

Defendant cites some cases in opposition, but theee can be 
éietinguishea. In Ball v. Serum, 35 111. App. 860, the holder of 
the interest coupens presented them for payment at the bank where 
they were payable and received payment in the same manner as in the 
case of previously maturing coupons. in a fereclosure proceeding 
the bank contended thet it had sdvanced the payment of the iaet tre 
interest coupens and was a purchaser. ‘The court held that from the 
mature of the previous transactions between the parties, the pay- 
ment by the bank was not a purchase; but payment. In the instant 
case, so far as the record shows, Harry Cowen paid for and re- 
eeived the notes from the Casualty Company for the first time, 
There were no previous transactions between him and the Casualty 
Company. in Pearce v. Sryant Cosi Co., 121 Ill. 590, Pearce, who 
advanced the money in payment of coupone, was a trustee and the 
finaneial agent of the makers of the netes and had been repaid the 
amount of the money he head advanced; the court held that the pre- 
ponderance of the evidence showed clearly that Pearce paid the 
coupons and did net purchase them. in Bennett v. Chandler, 199 I11. 
97, the coupon interest netes were placed in the hands of an agent 


for collection, but instead of collecting then he remitted the 





7 


sie bad weblod.edd yt —* hexaviteh st otos lcd cial aeons odd Pi 






duit t hod —* hie 8 2. poe ke —T — 8 
4 poem ed * Yedoa odd blag dasmusdaat ada ot soqnetts e — 

“th xe ⸗on edd Yo tanomse ai gow £b xedtodw soddaggat * wont * 
_Sqkeowt ofF a0 faaavng fase guiblos asaae teutte gnomA, +a 2 * 1 

— toa Soe onsdercg a ylovigquuan ty 32 aes. * ae —* J 4* 
ear? ov oH OER, eee BOLLLLS ais : so dau ase sts bs 













—“ ined ont ta tomeyeg, coh, ens And gosety aa J il pees 
ads ah ea ueanem ome oes ak, Semeaigen bovlegey ba —* wv @ oxen cots 
" gathoseots. squectoeret. « al -anoguaa — —2 en: 
/ owe fags edt. te atecav ost, Aeoaeths bax ah as a 0 a 
| gst mont, dake Blast dxuag, oat. atopasionue a nae bao ⸗ oenro⸗ tak 
omg ot — E — eas manned, aus iaoas aan⸗ avo ayora odd ie swsten 

— dtatend act al. tosargeg dad paadoumg « Jos paw Aaad. oct xd Anon 
| 99% baw Set Dhag mee yexall. .ewadn bieeee 963 a0 Tad of .H04 
} sents: seul aad, so yaaqmad Nelanneh Os, wes? ao tog suid davies | 

gt ieunad. ed? tue ats sogwded auottownaent avotvery an oxo o18 * 


















amount thereon out of his own funds without the knowledge of either 
the mortgagee or mortgager, snd indorsed his orincipal's asame on 
the back of the interest coupons. It was held that he hed not 
purchase’ these notes and had no authority ta indorse his srinci- 
pal's mame. In the instant esse the notes are payable to bearer 
and there ia no evidence that darry Coven wae representing the 
makers of the netes, 

It was open to appeliant te subooena Yolf Cowen and Brwin 
and darry Cowen, ani by their testimony attespt te overcome the 
presusption that the transaction was a pureciuse and not payment. 
The mortgagor, Wolr Cowen, would be eanecially interested, for if 
the notes were paid his indebtedness would be lessened, otherwise, 
if the notes were purchase@. The fact that he does not qieation the 
decree indicates tiat the notes were not paid. Hone of there pere 
fons testified, so that we are left with the legal presumption that 
Harry Cowen wurchaeedthe netea. The canceliation of his obligstion 
to complainant was a sufficient consideration fer the transfer of 
the couvon interest nets)s to somolainant, 

Ye see no convincing reason which would fustify us in 
reversing the deerse. It iz therefore affirmed. 

AFPIREED,. 


Matchett and O'Gonnor, JJ., conour. 






me nen ca! + tagtoates ata bowxebat baa tg a on J J 
bad od dade bind age 1 — — — — — ont * toad oad 
“stoatey abe eutonat 4 ua trevuca oa has bane. se ton suede bonadtot 14 


a. Bee HA 





normed of —2 ota Reson oad eens tangent ott at nana e few | 


ed J 


ont aalinegoxget ware mowed veren texts soawhive on at ouedt? ona 


seeren eas te ron⸗a 


eaten bas newe’ — an⸗ oaau⸗ ‘ot tua Ltoagn ot none wow Ge 


on smoateve ee squetta \aoalgaed hese Va bre erik * 
Beige ees * a Ae ae 1b SN ee — — 


fanaa on baa wane a eaw ; woktonenetd — —— ail — 


ed eo $3 ie ve 


motteptio als * — ——— — —— ’ — 





ak on —— hiwow tokie. aoac ox — on — fa 
be Pris ne ait ot @ te 
ore oxo ore. ef ta — .veronh | by it — 


aS —* de J 


— ———— 

Bah ME: Pe gg OEE: RET SBR. ase “gt Re J 

tits pie f ee. Ch dit: bie 
— ——— — ————— Bou e 

5 OS RON MS 


¢ 





— — 
i y hy Py? mem Re J— ern a 
ae ee ee 
Pa a — ae pay whey 


— * iy, x ee 7 ba Au wg 7. @ 1 eo gny i, £ Pee Ms 
wee Te a Ae aR a —5 A ee ih FE A SRG. a —* ane at Po: J—— 





pret Dawe a. Waal io J Seen 


fan ae ye ‘mains 

ris ae 

P Ay a a 4 Le A ale: ae MR Med Lae ae 4 Rice FY 344 — Reh il le ta att rly J— 
— i 


Fe ghey URE PRES Sik a ba fee A Per TS: ae 1) GR a 8 


i" — — ta eesend tad 
pee Bade bee uty Wit MFO ERGY # HGP RAK ante 





te 


36434 


BICK ORTOLEVA, 
Appellee, 


vs. 
THES JOHN HAKGOCK MUTUAL LIFS 
IWSURARCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, 
MASSACHUSETTS, « Corporation, 





270 1A.617 
MR, PRESIDING JUGTICS MeSURELY 
DOLIVERSY THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

Plaintiff brought suit as the beneficiary in two policies 

issued by defendant on the lifeuf his wife, Grace Orteleva, and 
upon trial by the eourt had judgnent for $906, from which def end- 
ant appeals. The pelicies net only provided fer paynent upon the 
death of the ineured, but alse for an additionsi amount in ease 
death was esuned by accident, aa foliews: 
"upon receipt of due proof that the insured *** has sustained 
bedily injury sclely threugh external, violent and aseidental 
means *** the sempany will pay *** an agcidental benefit equal 
to the face amount of insurance stated in this polioy.* 

Plaintiff alleged that on February 22, 1951 Grace Ortoleva 
@ied of bodily injuries sustained through external, violent ana 
accidental means, Defendant denies this, 

The ingeured lived with her husband, the plaintiff, end 
their four children and a brother of plaintiff, On the evening 
before she died she was in good health but was suffering from 
teothache; a1] ef the fauvily retired, but about eix o'cloak the 
next morning, which was Sunday, the brother suelled gas, and with 
plaintiff went to the kitehen and found the insured sitting by and 
leaning upon the combination coal and gas atove; wae had a dlanket 
about her; there wus no coal fire in the stove; on top of the stove 
wes a plllew and upen thie a hot water bottle; her face was resting 
en the hot water bottle; on the steve was a Little pan half full ef 
water; the gas jetea in the cteove were turned on about a quarter 







2. ge saveiotxo ound oule ets roots wae 9 tachast lb: 
-buwta fia tate ox? 008% et ems but Seat ow * ‘ e — 
nogu tmamyce “or bobtverg ‘haw ton setattog nf sakes a r . 
— onan xt srs osee Kwa bathe c dal oes dud che rat ‘ al aie 
— ee Pee. . : feeptto? oe mn ee wt een ae 
— esi 008 tine nth ell toorg % 
fietrebiosa bas. sacloly’, \ortosad Aga 


F — sitsaed fatnabicas wit oe —2 — 
ae ct — ‘pel ade — dead: 











ym bate ‘ee kes ape ath ig aM 
has _teteniets wad Bbasadenn ‘ton tthe paws t dome ab ot 
“qudarve ent al The ate te te rested & ‘ ne Raves | 
mons — — sew tud So a 





a 


aeie ban . ang hot ious xostous ott seabisn® ae aha — * 08 | 
one We —— ber ack od baw’ baw mnie « on * n · 





but were unlighted sud gas was escaping; the brethers carried her 
away and put her on the bed; apparently she was just dying; they 
sent imeediately for a pulmotor sauad of city firemen, who worked 
on her for some time but without avail. 

Defendant argues that these facta indicate that insured 
committed suicide. Ye cannot agree with tuis conclusion. ‘The 
most natural explanation of the clrounetences ie tha’ she was ate 
tempting to obtain relief from toothsehe; ehe lighted the gas and 
heated some water, put thie in the hot water bottle and, leaning 
ever the atove, put her face on the battle and the pillew and adozed; 
in the meantime the water left in the pan, which was immediately 
ever the ens fete, boiled over ae she slept and the water spilied 
on the gas fete, extinguishing them. The presence of the pillow 
and the hot water bettle are wholiy inconsistent with the idea of 
suicide, while the blanket, whieh defendant argues indicates sui- 
cide, was obviously worn beéause of the cold wenther, 

Death caused by inhaling iiluminating gas comes within the 
provieion of a policy indemnifying against injury caused by ex- 
ternal, violent and accidental means. Poul v, Travelers’ Cg., 


112K. XY, 472; Henley v, Mutual Accident Assos., 135 111. 596; 
As 268 Til. ADP. 503. 





Defendant argues that there was no proef of claim that the 
insured head 4ied through accidental means; that the paper filed with 
defendant is merely a proef of death. Plaintiff went with a» friend 
to the office of the defendant company shortly after the death of 
the insured; defendant's agent questioned plaintiff abeut the death 
ef his wife and plaintiff answered some eighteen or twenty questions 
put te him by the agent and the auswere were put down by the agent 
in the usual form made out for claims, and the document was then 
signed snd sworn te by the plaintiff. Thies paper contained the 
statement that the deceased had been asphyxiated and also that 


A a * 


* post belrreo! baunatout add tyatgnose as’ efy Box —z„4— oro : 
yond wakes ext, aa exis vidos tame thed any wo ted tegen yawe 
“betiow ante oa todi Gflo te bese * il tot — — 
Shaws swositie aus watt omen net: wake 
‘ —8 teds oieotbat atont seeds dase eeugre sombae tet ao 
} gut. abba tomes ‘ies Mitte ootga tomas oY .obtelue hess hemo 
«ta gow ote fant of seoresamus tio edt % seemioe iatetea teem 
ne aay odd Hediglf oe soddadtedd Mout Yohiod abatde ot walt med 
“Yatewot ine ofhted tose 28d off ab eax Fug” (Find eit betaine 
thesos has woltt, oil? bie Oldtod Ort no see rem dug eve Ra Oem 
“ye kote theaisk ase’ dette , aay oft al Stet ore dewiade emtinaed ea 
Bershee redaw ods fae teeth ous ve teve be ttod oedet sae WATTS 
wortig si? te soavnete oot Land) anbtelipatien (etet keg edhone 
‘te sobl off ugiw trode lehooks yllenw 626 efteod’s ” aw ats: mitt be : 
* — as vux⸗ abtheatot as t , ao ucn te oa ata oh totun 
Haw bow 9st Yo SeeeRed mow etevolras anv ae. 
edt midsiv eames oon gattentmtee gatlosiat of —8 Htnet ss 
— va beaseo pean sentege ‘gatytlomepat water 8 J———— 
.-92_nal ‘exetover? .v fua% —8 tadaeb tee⸗ fax — Aa vro⸗ 
Wig Att GUL ,.poaed Das i 
a: £08 . yea £4 608 , 202 F Lhe seve kouet Wm 
ent Sead wtafo te — on Gan arsiit — 2* — ————— 




















Sef 


. gabe battt aseqag ott tats —J atoenoon dyuorsts bor bast betenat 






29 sess —* xis xian qaseos tenhas ten out te — 


tach pats fwodn naratata bomolswaup some 8! daha 9b —* an i 

aaekiannp yieewd To aged rig do one horecene Vebtaiete bmw othe “ali Yo | 
_ Paes ont ya awoh * aꝛov oxro ve⸗ ont da⸗ tn ge one w wis oF 2 te ! 

past eam temmiio ob ast baw yantate “ot sue bem ate? some out = , 


Jha ot a 
ote b betiataoe ⁊o qug a Aur sPlivatete ont ve oe wove * ae. wes 
‘ WE —* Pee 5 ae t Ww Aira 
tect eate bow hodateysiges nao had —2 ont teste iss 


Ye 





the cause of death was asphyxiation; the answer to the question as 
to the duration of illness was, "Suddenly - coroner's case;” it 
also contained the statement that there were ne physicians attend- 
ing the deceased in her last ilimess, At the same time there was 
alee left with the defendant the certificate of the coroner of 
Ceok county containing the finding that, “The Cause of Death was 
as follows: Asphyxiation by illuminating gas poisoning inhaled 
gas which was escaping from epen burner of gas range in her home. 
Contributory (secondary) Accidental. Injury received in Chieage, 
Gity." Thie was sufficient to notify the defendant that the cause 
of death was accidental. So request for any additiom&l preof was 
made by the defendant and it must therefore be presumed that all 
the information it required was furnished, Upon the trial o phyei- 
cien whe was employed by the County at the time of the death eof the 
ineured and whe Asd exauined her bedy, guve it as hie opinion that 
“her death wae the result of asphyxiation by carbon monexide gas 
peisoning, or illuminating gas.* 

Befentant's brief complains of the refusal of the court te 
permit further examination of one of the witnesses, The brief 
aces net sufficiently point out facts from which we may conclude 
whether the evidence sought te be developed was relevant, material, 
competent or important. 

The evidence fustified the finding of the court, and the 
jJudsment 1s therefore affirmed, 

AFFIRMED. 


RZatehett and O'Cenner, JJ,, concur. 


By 


ae aulSaoup oid of xewene pat jaoitatxysiqna saw siteob Yo eauas, ot, 
th “jones al tanetes « YARebheG" ,asv esonitd Tp aoisaish eft of, 
—— Saaloiaysy on etew sted Jad ineamteade edt Aniatnewy: #ade « 
gen oted omis sane off tA amon th feel tod, md, beaanash ont, wats. 
‘te aimores add Te aganttisans anf sanbawteh ost, aithw get on ke 
naw sgeet Yo sewn? pai" tact gabbalt ac? patatadnen, qemune dood, 
 beiacal galneaiog say galtaciayits yd ao Malxqdqad iomeltet aa 
- steno! wei al eycsy #24 Yo xomrad aego mort wotqrome tax tom 86a, 
,opeaim at bevyissex yawtal .fedaeh bona (yxabmoooe ) graded? 
Savas edd Sofi? Iaadaw'ted of? Yiiten of tmnterTive, now aↄtag — 
ane Yovrg idaoliibse yaa tet deeepen of  .fatanhtopa. asm dta0b to 
fie tees demmerq ed piolviedy Inem Ih bag sunpoo ted Ls laslaniaes 
iF obey, @ feiss ai? poql .beretaist gow bethupges, $4 nodd. 
| galt To Agee ons To omts of? Fm. wenwer, ond, xd, honed 
-— dastg, moiakae Rid no th orem yXboM, x95 bemtonne bes ee, ba, weak 
tag eblxoxon sodas yd Aalielzysdgee le tivees. ——— teed. % . 












— 
<r 
fut 





of ston offs Xo teogon oH To Baladgaoo ates — — ———— / 
_, 3ebrd eT .anavontiv. ast ‘to eno tp, nelde “oct? gbmnag.. ei 
ebulenss yen, ey fotdy next teat sue sabog — som aie 

4 efelredan .tnave on new hogoLayeh of ef tigvom gonad 


ny hive. Mi 2a * 4* 











peared rend, ” = 





oe — 


Ce ea No oa sa 
£G BRAT Se. Sat ey 
Aly — 


—J—— ay pT ee 
x 





— PAD 
ya ¥ J— 
Re 


| seven att, r0sno!9 an. tata, | 
—* De ved Ded a is ee te ‘ 

(ok eho ete arn@’h som aa ooh. 
—— 


alt gs wt meet bas ie 


— 





i 
, ) th ih 
bgerish cone & jie Ihe 3 BORE ARE | wale ttt oe ae 


Per 


‘ 
en) 
& 


36461 


LOUIS YABLIN, Being Buciness * 
as the CHICAGO PLOAT YORKS, * 
Appellee, .._/ 


has FRO UI PAL 


) / oc CURT OF Cake 






va. 


THE UNION PROTICTS COAPARY, an 
Ohie Corporation, 


eee — — —ꝰes— — 


Aopellant. 


¢ } 7 0 ] J ALE iD 5] : 


BR, PRESIDING JUSTICH MesURELY 
PSLIVERUD THE OPINION Of THE COURT. 





Defendant appeals from an erder denying ite notion te 
vacate a judement for $1000 entered ugninat it by dafsalt when 
the cause was calle¢ fer trial and it falhed te appear. 

The record showe that the suswens wos served July 6, 

1932, upon Ralph &. Stelts, manager of the defendant corporation 
in Chicago; July 12, 1952, judgment by default wae entered againat 
defendant; July 14th defendent wae agerised ef thie judgment; July 
28th it filed a special ond limited «powarence by ite attorneys 
for the sole purposes of woving te cuash the serviee of summone. 
Under Bule 12 of the Bumicipai court, if such a motion raiser an 
iseue of fact dehorg the record, the sourt will hear evidence pre- 
sented. DBefendent introduced evidence tending to show that it was 
an Chie corserstion, net deing business in Iliineis; that Aalph #. 
Stelts, upon whom the susmene hed been served, wae a saleswan only 
and not amenable to service as representing the defendant corvera- 
tion; the recerd ahevs that when Stoltz received the summons, ine 
stead of reverting thie to hie principal effiee he foolishly re- 
turned it by mail to the Municipal court; the motion te quash wae 
Continued from time to time and September 23, 1932, was denied, 
Defendant 4id no} stand by this motion, but the same day an order 
Was entered that ite special appearance stand as as general appearance 
and lesve was given defendant to file ite motion, supperted by 






sige “ ago bi racod 


WiSNUU BOI TAT purateant yng bh 2 Dis, 
THI) EET WO WOTKR4O AHP CHANVE: Eset ch 


WOKE — tps 









— goksexoqton trade 2a es xeyanca — —— a oe er 
Paty * BD Sa J 
——— bexeray ane thn toh of teomphast (seer * yaw 4 


“ela phaeumboit: aus * poabraga | eae Fanbao toh det i‘ 















te ‘goater wots on * dome ue stems feaqio tant ont — 55 — — 
“etd ounabive anes tite #xuoo anit bos ouit expdab | tent Yo * * 2 
ear at sesit voiia ot gulhins eeaebivs boowhoneat taghas tee : eg 

| M dqiad test polonitiT ut areatond gakob ton “yaebtaxoeno ¢ 0 
Vino aewaelon 2 caw ,hovren noed hast eas vars one neste * mas ; 
xogꝛo Yeabae tes odie putt aeaotqne oe eoivtee at eid EL 
eat —8— odd hovioges atioré sae ster tasit avons — eae st nots 

~9t ULiellool ed soltte Lagtenteg abd of wha aakotegnt to t : to vk 3 

enw dawn of totten odd j#xwoo Lagtotaull axle o@ Bom ye beuxnet 

sSelaoh awe AECL ,o2 — ean onat oF cade ment 





ar beartonque etolvom att ott oF aan t0b mov 





affidavit, to vacate the default ond judgment ef July 12th; upon 
hearing this motion was overruled and defendant appeals from this 
order, 

The main argument of defendant's brief in thie court ie 
addressed to the ruling of the court denying its motion to quash 
the service of summons, but thie point is not before us fer the 
reason that «hen the special appearance Was ordered to stand as a 
general appearance and defendant filed ita petition te vaeate the 
Judgment, it waived any irregularity in the service of summons. 

In the recent case In re Voislowsky, ¢tc., ¥. Engel, 264 411. App. 
398, we said that where a party takee steps in 2 case which eould 
be sustained only by the exercise of jurisdiction, the avpesrance 
is general although he may have filed « limited special appesr- 
anee, citing many supsorting cases, Therefore, the only point for 
this court to consider iz the propriety of the ruling of the trial 
court denying defendant's moticn te vacate the judgment. 

The judgment was entered July 12th and the petition te 
vacate wae filed September GSrd, whieh was some time after the 
thirty days after judgment had gone by. The trial court held that 
the motion was asade teo late, Defendant claims that ite netition 
comes under paragraph 409, chapter 37, illineis Statutes ( Cahili) 
whieh prevides that after thirty days have expired a judgment may 
be vaeated upon filing a petition setting forth grounds which would 
be sufficient te cause the same to be vacated by a bill in equity. 

Plaintiff's statement of claim asserted that he had pur- 
ehased from defendant certain materials to be used in covering 
eertain tanks of the plaintiff; that defendant hed susrantead that 
the tanks so covered with these materials would cause them te be 
acid-proof ani watereproof; that the covering of these tanks with 
the materials furnished by defeniant was undertaken to be done by 


@efendant under the supervision of its agent er servant; that 





mom iAYSL ytut Yo taompdut due stua'teh ot soiely of + 
ekdt mort — teabiosted him had aay nos on ane sutzand 
gh uve what at tetad — dubiae tel ‘te Snsmmg3s Rhee eat — 
aea ug ot moldou eth galyaoh drupe ext ‘te pil ios ed of paweor hha 
wud tot ew widtted bos ab. fatoq sid? ted ,eneemee te aohveea oat 

@ a8 beote of howedte saw veneimeqqe Ialoogu aff now tedd aoneet 
eat ateoay of mo hgh a8g ere pith tonboo teh Beam: oo ne tes gee — 
enomewe to soivren ect at — 5 yan hoviaw th ,tuemghul, 
otk [ELE ROR, Sonne yy ——— x tome 






See ener eas 





— — — 






— — 





* 







— ee oe — = a ee rs 
Awe Ch ee i te 


owangee faleted bodinll « be LP eved yom oo 
“et cc waa” — — *————— 


id arn vant?’ Soe eaw Ab beer » bette eden sque avert J 
font bied seneo Tatts of? iyo d Gat —E gavte aged: * kai * 
‘moiekieg aff daitt amtaco taanne'tet leted gor ‘shee ane sebto ot 
“UtLbied) aedvdese abonkiii (tt tetGeda CO Remtyatee Yona Benes 
tow trmmghvt » berless oad ayab yrekat soot dant AAuvnt <n 

piwaw Ho ivie whediotg deol daksten mekshtor # ghtt st wequ' e iv * 
win pe ab LLtS @ yt bodasuy od oF ona od weues Bd die — *X 
wtwe hed OA gadt hatdbaas minke to Joowotede —D — ie ai 
gatrewoo of boat od oF akalvediw niataey duaboe teh m X i es 
tnd postneteny bet cuehae'ted gaud pTritakaty ode a ited dn? 
od 62 heut baues binow atatredan sands tate | Bienen — 
AN eilind ono Yo gabtoves axl sett (Xoo —X —E 5 
i * * piton 60 n vaw Faaknetoh eo biti bine scab 4 


ie ee a ee r 


il {énevioa to taaga ‘aa to mots ivrsqie 




























defenitant wholly failed so to cover enid tanke but did oo in an 
improper manner by reason whereof the tanks were domaged by the 
acid in said tenks by destroying the bolte and esting up the wood 
in said tenke, thus destroying them, to the damage of plaintiff in 
the sum of $1000. The petitien te vacate the judgment is a general 
@eninl of these averments and dees not set forth any matters upon 
the merits entitling defendant te equitable relief. 

The petition also sete forth that the hearinge on ita 
motion to quash the summons were continued from time to time and 
that said sotion was not acted upon until September 23, 193%; that 
in the light of these circumstances it would be inequitable te 
permit the default sfudygment te etand, Befendant bad the eptien te 
abide by its motion to quash the surmene or to absnden this and 
enter a general appearance and meve for the vacation of the fudge 
ment. if it cheese the latter course it could not assert as equit- 
able groutids ony matters connected with ite motion to quash. As 
we have said above, with the entry of the general appearance of the 
defendant and ita filing the motion to vacate the judement, the 
motion to quash the sumtiens was abandoned. 

Defendant alse says that plaintifi's siaim is for unli- 
quidated damages and that upen default ef defendant ne damages were 
proven,end that thie was a fraud upon the eourt. If tis was error, 
which is not conceded, it was error in procedure reviewable by this 
court upon writ of error. The petition does not state any eoulit- 
able grounds in this respect whieh shauld have moved the ecurt te 
vaeate the judgment. In Nann vy. Brown, 263 Lil. 394, it wae held 
that the matter of ase¢ssing damages alter defauit iz one of 
practice which may be governed by rules of tha Bunicipal Court, and 
Rule 18 of the Kunicipal Court seems to warrant the practice followed 
am this case, Furthermore, the record shows that upon the hearing 


ef the motion to vacate, plaintiff's attorney offered to submit the 


M6 ML 8 BLD dug waned bes teVOD of om Detter wL egw tom 
—— — le ret IP 













ak Rdipabs 

nO, a at £ iene: aA — e nels Meg ent. 
aoqu i hn ye, cite, foe tom, seo bate at Lh We 
oo pte ay wtp bden eidasiepe of tapdaecop ——— agns tom § * 
ath no apntzand pal gems, sued aten oe ke perce Bo tN 








J eet et so cima Tqet soe Aegu ton — — 
of aidasiupend ef Akvow 61 enpanteavatte paods ‘te aight get gb 





how Bhd nehaodn of xe waemaun alt — ot “abt ewth yd 
_sBbul, af to seltocay sit x02 avon dan, sonetanena Leveanm a ted 


view — ccs — anita Ro , dzuaren aogu — ba Segsaah fe 
{TORT® pow ett TL .stK09 eft moqy fuer’ # aew B2k2 darit hae. am 
wits yd eLdmwolves exhesota at toxxe new 24 ,dabaomen —ã 
_midupe yne eteto Jom eng mots livg aa norte te Siny moan Pisee 
at, sxuon elt havom eves bivoste siotdw la vam % Lars 2a 
—* — xxx AR kat  ,t , at ateoey 
oe ome at ¢iveteb seg te — ve atin amt tas | 
2 od iaqiatault ext Yo. notin ve bemeavon ad yam ie 
PAAR A fm AP OE AOR tates | 














amount of dazages to the court, saying that defendant had slready 
offered plaintiff $300 but the plaintiff would abide by whatever 
amount the court might determine. Defendant's counsel aid net 
accept this offer and no further evidence was considered by the 
trial court. 

| We see no reason to disagree with the holding of the 
court, and the ruling of the court on the motion to vacate ie 


affirmed, 
AFYIRWER, 


Katohett and ('Goenner, JJ,., consur. 














—— erry apr 

—— * ohisa on 

hee ve Hog —J ESR ida cee eee rol bine M 
io @ toanneter 

4 — 


as fo AOR a 
‘eld a hanes bones lamos aw gonsbive 


y : Mi Who RA aa 4 
hance * Hose Gl HID} ** 1 Ria hae 








SMP Fee 2a POWs, 
1th Loa ees pre 
i a Ae eae Aa We — 
ad ** aon 5 so 8 

































2 we: pitied ee tae eh. & Sale. a 2 wpe ed ty — 
— , th 


: K , 4 ne tl —— bl 
fe egy SSE, Reh aR. a \ 





Die RAG AO REE Oe om. Cenbenme Me 
—* — SRS RY. GRY. S8RS RR PRA —— 
wiki ae dread Ont Dlisted, 
— 
par Sas. Watuarget ae, 
Ay dacs ail y⸗ 

— J 
ae ‘ane 3 a Bh OE, La ae, is wade J 
ween meena hk J——— * i — a tek out | 
— cr ee Tk thee, walt epg hi ae, * * geste 


F 


bate, Mest we tae S Perk, emanate ett, ing J am. J— ah 


Ant 





adtbuas Reh, IRR ROM. dead pads — eee 





: ge nese. ett dawson vas Bis only. Fy — x eh a ® 
Aad wen Af (78h he Re atat ea 
i PY Oly, Be: OK) Ae LO werk he ——— — —* 


— 5 wae ebay Ye Ra, 94 aah —J 
— D——— ees ew sass 


| oe * an * —R weataa — — 


ek 
aV Ae? f 
* F —J 


S. A. GLOVER 
Praintiff in Srror; 





vs. 


COSMOPOLITAN LIVE INSURANCE 
COMPANY, a Corporation 
Defendant in irror. 


oF catcaco,” 


2¢0 14.6175 


DELIVSHRD THE OPINION OF TH COURT, 

Plaintiff, im an eetion of the feurth class in the Zunicipal 
Court wherein he sought te recever §600 from the defeniant, suffered 
an adverse finding and judgment. te aske for w reversal. 

Plaintiff's statement of claim alleged in substance that he 
had performed services as an actuary for the Sheridan Life Insur- 
ance Coupany for which there wae a balanee due and umpaid of $660; 
that subsequemtiy the Gheridan Life Insurance —— and the Cos- 
mopolitan Life Insuranee Company, the defendant here, were duly 
consolidated pureuant to the stetute relating te the consolidation | 
and reinsurance of insurance companies; that by reason thereof the 
Coamooolitan Life Incuranee Company assumed the ebligatione and 
liabilities of said Sheridan Life Insurance Company and thus became 
liable to pay plaintiff the unpaid balanee due upon hie sccount with 
the Gheridan Life Insurance Company. 

The statement alse averred that on May 20, 1931, the Sheridan 
Life Insurance company executed and delivered to plaintiff its 
note for $600 te evidence its indebtedness to plaintiff; that by 
the consolidation defendant became liable te pay this note; that 
the nete contained a power of attorney to confesa judgment, and 
that thereafter, on Sovember 25, 1951, judgment by confession was 
rendered in the Zunicipal court against the Sheridan Life insurance 


company fer the amount due upen seid Promissory nete, tegether with 





ethuvem abrraut outa wil 
—— aie 


3 Legioineé est al —* dtxmot ec te molson as md Mbtedese ne ek | 

bor Te .saabap ine ad mor? Oved sevoDeE of Idguon os — i 
-Lawsevet @ t¢% wane of «30 uty bie ytth ait ‘os 

ak tesild snantndie ab hegelie atele te tusmtats a! Stlanieds 

waa Stid sshiaedt eff tok yeawdee an Be aeotveee | * —* ok 











is “_ eiew ,9150 saahae ted sd — — — ota, * On “y | 
! sottabt loa aos oat of gaktelot etutate ot of ne us eu⸗ —2** ¥ 









=~ eaplinglide ent Seamese Yanqued vonneueel ones cat at Liog — ee . 
4 — auds bus Yagsod sommuasd odd aad isos Siew te o> ho ee | 
| % aigie —— ald aoqu seb goasind btagax end vitdatese vee se: 
Pg | | — — — SOOO 
J ——8 ons 698 oS yal wo dase hewwevs cafe tesantete — 
aed Thigsielg of beteviiel bas Batepone hill gee * 





any ei tuas Lass yd —— tees * —“ canine ome? tame 
sonexsast J aare⸗⸗ ont tant⸗a⸗ — aghe ot at J ed ete 


aie —8 toa qonatnerg ba sogw ab. —— atl ital 





interest and coste, axgregating $675.30; that by virtue of the con- 
solidation defendant became liable on said judgment. 

Upon trial by the court plaintiff offered to prove his ser- 
viees to the Sheridan Life Insurance company and the balance due 
therefor; defendant objected te this evidence on the ground that - 
plaintiff's sole cause of action was upon the judgment against the 
Sheridan Life Insurance company, the argument apparently being that 
the claim for services and the note were merged in the judgment, 
leaving it ae the sole cause of action. The court sustained this 
ebdvjection. 

Plaintiff aleo offered the certificate of the Director of 
Trade snd Commerce approving the contract eof consolidation er ree 
insurance ef the Sheridan company with the Cosmopolitan company, to- | 
gether with the contract of consolidation and relnaurance. Obdjee- 
tions to these documents were made: upon the ground, ae above 
indicated, that all claims of plaintiff had become merged in the 
judgment, and that the proof offered had no besering on any liability 
that might exist agsinat the defendant, The objections were overruled, 

A record of the judgment obtained by plaintiff against the 
Sheridan Life ineuranee Company upon the judgment note wae admitted 
in evidence, Plaintiff aleo offered te prove a certain contract 
between 4. 4. Burke and George ¥. Jones and Harrison Parker. Ob- 
Jection te this was sustained on the ground that it had nothing te 
do with any liability ef the defendant. At the conclusion ef plain- 
tiff's evidence the court, on motion ef the defendant, found against 
the plaintiff and judgment wae entered accordingly. 

Defendant in thie court seeks to support the judgment on the 
ground that the claim of plaintiff fer services and also upen the 
note are merged in the judgment, and that defendant cannet be sued 
upon the judgment, citing Franklin Life in CO. Ve. Adame, 90 111, 
App. 655. in this case the facta are similar te those before us. 





euso od? Ie owtusy yd Jedd ;OR.aTeb yaisepetane ,atuen daw debeeb 
staomabal, bine n¢ afdail emaped Janbantebh aeltabhios 
oten eld overg of tuneTho Tiltalete¢ Sixeo edt ca totes me : 
out epaeted alg han yougees sconeuwenl ethd eabitede ⸗ +} avety 
tad? bavet 042 no gosebive wict of hoteetde sashaeteh paetened 
as? tantags dian aapibart, om some gaw wekfae Te eaves Vike 4 tesla 
gadt gated ylisetsoqn tusmwate od? ,ymequen eeaeteen] ottd mabiaedt 
,tmoghnt odd at begtem ote. atoa edt bate noalries *ot atefo edt 
aid? benieteue tine eff ,aettes to casas ston ef? aa #2 yubvaot 












to sédperkd edt Vo odaottifues edd hexstte els binned ett ——— 

ot te Motdabifoonse ‘to fearing edt udlvetgqs éoteu iS hee ‘enn 
——— ee ose gle ———— —* ——— 
lel endl ia Nd am: osew adn . 
ade it boysost oaicond bud advent Yo subaite Mid * ih —* 
etiitdeil yas ac galszod on bad horeTte Toor ont Gel® di us 
3 load oighn decd 


* zd Rial 
tA 








1 bo Lutte vo sisew anoisjostdo ant .oitebes tes ong i ‘ai — 
64S Paatage Ttliniaiea ww bestaids drmey bot, ‘ads 9— a 
bodd imbe tew atou toembwh edd moqe yneqmod —7 had , ; — ? 

‘Powtdves alediee & ovety of hots tte date Yuvetert © «Das be J 
<9 .t9dtet nn bas eens —— eatedt Jk meee: —— 
of gatdtom bud tf tad? bawery edd ao danee aaw oh ai 

‘withete Yo aeteuioaoo #43 FA .tanbae'teh of? Yo Witidelt — athe ob 

faninge hawot ,oeabueteh ed? Te aokeow me aad a fa as 

— horstse cow tuemgbut Das ‘Thiviake 

ex 0 dasnmhut, oud frowque of adobe Fxx00 OLAd at Panhee'ted * 

wag aoqu ote bow evolytee sol vuaiate Yo atate al —* 
Bouse of Pomme Paadas tod daxte heandhin i orks, 
htt Ge | ai o® 


















it wae there held that while the statute authorizing consolidations 
(now chap. 73, para, 39, Cahill) provided that euits pending at 
the time of the consolidation shall not be abated or discontinued 
by reason of such ceneolideation, but may be prosecuted to final 
Judgment in the same mammer ae if consolidation had not taken 
Place, yet where actions on claimshad not been commenced before 
consolidation, and claimant had, after coneclidation, commenced 
suit and ovtained a judgnent agsinst a constituent cempany, it 
could not sue on the judgment against the censelidated company. 
The opinion on this point is not applicable mere for the reason 
that, es we hold, neither the note nor judgment in the present case 
has any validity, and that plaintiff wae entitled to proceed against 
the defendant only upon the first count of ite statement of claim, 
namely, for the balance due at the date of consolidation fer nere 
vices rendered the Sheridan Life Insurance Company, for which, 
upon the consolidation, defendant became liable. 

The contrast of consolidation and reinsurance was executed 
Hay 16, 1931; the judgeent nete executed by the Sheridan Life In- 
suranee company, by Harrison Parker, its president, was executed 
Bay 20, 1951, or twe days after the exeeution of the contract of 
Consolidation; by clause 5 of said contract the Sheridan Life In- 
surance company sold to the Coamepolitan Life Ineurance company all 
existing business, assets, ¢tc., and this company agres@ te "assume 
said liabilities” of the Sheridan Life Inguranee company. By a 
consolidation under euch circumstances the conaclidated company 
becomes anawerable and liable for all debts and obligations of the 
constituent companies. Fara. 71, chap. 37, Cahill's 113. State. 
1932; GS. So F. & . BYs 8G. Vs Aghling, 160 111. 373; Chicago 
Tithe & Trust Co. v, Doyle, 289 111. 489; Seater Lids sag so ty 
i, Bll 111. 200; 


293 K12. 112; Sehetdel Coli Go. v. Howe, 242 111. 484; Ghicage # 








 amottatiforme gukabrorisun wtutade ash knew taste boot ‘ener aw or 
te jathaeg stie ¢adt bobtvety (SEs «80 amy OP quia | weal’ 
fomnitaovath te bedwde md Foe 4 feats Astsabikownos of) hy ents ant 
feat? of batueanetg of you Jat (sot tab oowaen dows te sea e * 
sated 2am Basi Rottadifoswes LE ee — wmae ast a un “ vt, 











hognm asne vig htabkioasan ted ta vast tamsbats pew ini ——— 
th antnns soertitees a temtngs daneyhut a demtasde fate dha 4 
page aotnbiinanes ait domlage Temgbet iad — ate 














pane aaonareg od: ot —EXRX ‘Seu efem sity tod bon abet wie — 
tenl aga vrorera Ot SoLehtite aaw Thivatets eauu ‘tow — — 


WLels ommeod Se baw tes sin | | 

—E ew sean tekater ban soitebhieeroe te toebaiee att 
(et wih Vek ited odd vet be deoone ston tus ayhet oat —* x " 

fediromen sav fusbsaere sth ——— ao aunon ye seen 5 ya or 9— 


A waa — ———— 
———— ant tioqooead oat oY blow ‘yanaaoe. 5 —R ae 
|) emmas* of hswxge ynoques ade hme , 080: catoeen jeneataud 9a eto! 
er ——— omen comment othe ash ores sal —— bbs — 





Joliet Bree, Ry. Co. vs Verguson, 106 lil. App. 356. 
The statute further provides - chap. 73, para. 31, Cahill «- 


that no articles of consolidation or reinsurance “shall take effect 
unless and until" the articles of consolidation have received the 
approval of the Direetor of Trade and Commerce. The approval of the 
contract of conselidation in question was given by the Director July 
28, 1931, amd plaintiff argues that as the censolidation 414 not 
become effeotive until thie latter date the Sheridan Life Insurance 
Cempany had the power, in the interim between the execution ef the 
contract of conesclidation and the date of ites appreval by the Diree- 
tor, to execute the mete. We cannet agree with this contention. 
Some authorities day that upen the execution of an agreement ef con- 
solidation the constituent companies are dieselved and a new eompany 
is created, 2 Cook om Stockholders, (34 ed.), see, 910; 1 Beach on 
Private Corpersationa, sec. 333. Hut however this may be, it would be 
eontrary to reagen and justice to permit a constitaent company, after 
the eontract of consolidation is executed, te enter inte new con- 
tracts end to ineur new obiigations, We hold, therefore, that the 
liabilities assumed by the consolidated cempany under the centract 
of consclidation were the liabilities existing at the date the con- 
tract was executed, which contract became effective os of that date 
upon reeeciving the approval of the Sirecter ef {rade and Commerce, 
It fellows that the note executed two days after the contract of 
consolidation was exeouted was @ nullity and of no foree end effect. 
As we heave indicated, plaintiff was entitled to preceecd 
againet defendant to recover the balance claimed te be due when the 
contract wae executed, for services rendered to the Sheridan Life 
Insurance company, and defendant was entitled te present such de- 
fense to this as the Sheridan Life Insurance company might have 


presented, 





008 gh 40d #08 yap 

- LEbded ae oF eadto . aeblvorg xedgat ‘etuneie at | 
dookts ones “btaa* sonetuenten ze ‘metdabhionans te uototiua on ton 
eas bevivows avast agtiablicaasa te — “beac baa 9 s i fe J 
ead to invexage ont ssorseed baw obatt %¢ ‘sotoorkt onde ta Laver 
yt. ¢ sedan tse ould ee asi sor ‘nettaoup ak nok tabl Loess te deexd 2 
gon bib noltad!.toasco said we asi sont “Tidtalasg bas a ek * 
—E— orb abs teas eag ‘oteb 10d 30k ened gerd eviieette, * 
ont te nek? woex eat neowtad bvedat out at 1 v0g ‘ont hed i 
-o0rid oat yd Lavorsea ait te otab wad ews not tabi tonne te —X 
—— a bsid wake sete fenues om eto «silt ® otuvexe . 













ae ‘Honed & 048 aoe 44 be) veobtoteoota ae sali : a ‘8 
af biuaw 4 .od yor edad xovowed aut BRE von “seat ce é ht 
Tarte ,yaeqeon tana ivancn # long ot oobtast baw feanon cube 

“soo wen oad Bodine ad  botupexe et wottebl coumme “te seb | 
ou? tacts SteRO Ned voted e® yenoktegtide wan muont of ‘pail’ baie ie 
feateage — tebay ‘eneganao betabstonnon ost we bemwaes aon bi fa. Z 

“BOD eas eiah vate de gaigeine wolsithde dt and stow nab abtinaaos Yo 

onan tadd Xo ea ‘evidootts amas soardaan dotaw shotuoene aww tenxd 

/ ,soxsaiena ome oboe? Ye rodgonts odd re — out A· ie⸗ꝛ * coon nequ 














The testimony offered by plaintiff touching wach services 
was competent as was also the evidence we te the consolidation, In 
the offer of the contract of July 6, 1931, purporting to be between 
Burke and Jones on the one hand,with Harrison Parker, counsel for 
Plaintiff stated that these parties were acting on behalf of the 
Comzmopolitan Life Ineuranee company and the Sheridan Life Ineuranee 
company, respectively, If this could be ehown, the document was 
admigsible a9 it refers specifically to the indebtedness to plain- 
tiff. 

the ease relied on ty defendant, Franklin Life Ine, Go, v. 
Adang, suprg, tends to suppert cur conclusion, for it was there 
held that the claintiff eould preceed against the consolidated 
company uwoon the policy igsued by one of the constituent companies. 

Yor the reasons indicated the judgment is reversed and the 
cause is remanded for further proveedings consistent with what we 
have asid in this ovinion. 

REVERSED ANT ARMARDSD, 


Matchett and G'Ceonmer, J7., concur, 










tot Lennon — aon iret dhe boait eas adi” no | deat 
“ad? Te Ufeded ne gnktoe exaw eoltsaa oa ae ales pete — 

eonatenat ated Aabiued on¢ bow ‘gegen 4— —D aad peeks tims 
gine damecibes okt aware o¢ Kieoo mail ad “eles vee is as 
— of — ott of — J * * 





of ppak ott wi teen — ud a0 better ae wae — 

— wuw 32 402 ,nobecitbnon woe ——— 2⏑⏑ ⏑0⏑ alae Small 
hosebt Loni ous tadkaga bowsnre bios PEitataty war badd pLor 
leetanqnes toeut bienos est Ye ome yd donned ‘wrtea ee ae 
itt bre hestoved ot tuexabwt eat patie bat estoaaet oats set” oy at — 
pe gadw atte fasgelenon ——— Arte tet batamna J— 


















* ." Mt KY ths ee a 


is ue a — hw at 7 oe 


. keeeeecn aot 2 donee 
— RIAL es at 
1% Gow bodcookh wee anbaeblighven 

PSE wae wh 
auReed ¥ gnvpars of 7 peewee rreh v4 vec —* 
Se ee ; ; eed foe) 


Le et ae 
x * A— — i et £ mt —— 
Abe TOR RA Le — — 





oe Seat sigeut 


36804 x. 
(SOY, 
i 


BERTHA GEARS, y, ‘4 ⸗ 
Appellee, 
APPRAL FROM sure 





Va. 


) OF COOK COU! 
BMNEFIT ASSOCIATION OF RAILWAY Y 


270 1.4. 617" 


wR. PRESIDING JUSTICR MeBURELY 
DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THR COURT, 


EMPLOYEES, a Corporation, 
Appellant. 


Plaintiff, bringing suit upon an aceident policy for $2606 
issued by defendant, in which she was named as beneficiary, upon 
triel had a verdict of a jury for $1906.67, and defendant apocals 
from the judgeent for this amount. 

The insured, Herbert Gera, war the aon of plaintiff and 
the policy covered denth by accident, He was accidentaliy killed 
February 9, 1930, while the policy wae in effect; proofs of drath 
were duly made and filed with defendant pursusnt te the provisions 
of the policy. 

Defendant issued two accident pelicies te Herbert ders, 
one dated Cetober 16, 1924, fer 31000 and the other, upon which 
thie salt is brought, dated August 2, 1926, fer $2560; plaintiff 
Was named ag beneficiary in beth policivs, 

The defense presented is that plaintiff by an instrument 
in writing released all her claims azainat defendant om any ine 
surance policies, Pimintiff replies that the release was only of 
her claim under the $10G0 policy, ond that if the document purperts 
te release any claims under the $2500 policy her consent and signa- 
ture thereto were obtained by fraud, 

The jury could properly believe that on or about March 7, 
1930, plaintiff was requested te come to the office of defendant 


to interview Er, Donovan, a representative of defendant, and was 


requested to bring the policy with her; the following day she called 













/ i oxen ey | 
* 09 wo is 








siaeoas Sebi led has .V2,000L2 tet yauh wa he tots res : hab ne aay 


baw ) Webbatate te ade ae eee yeree sandra, shonwend Mca j | 
- BOLE Lier owblens naw ot jronhtooe wt eed heaven sao 4 
‘bate te stewie ttoeTie af aew eohion: ‘end athie. ones 4* J * ‘ 
ametedvore ems ot —E dtéo BALLS ‘se a: ; ab 0 = 
yard N · on of Gekehion smsitonn ead berenk Inobar ted — 2 — 
Hokie noqy , edie ad? ban OOORS 0? eoer ae 5 nan 
rit aaaio ——— amen beanh. —ER& os: thee aki 7 is 
evloiiog sted at ratol tend om Set saw | 
dnemetde nt a⸗ ed Tilsataly feds ok badusdexe semeteh oft — es 
eth Yam ao “Panda Woh temiags aka te aad ike hota tow ‘weldinw at pt 
ae ‘ te visa eaw seentet off feslf eotinns Webdatnsd soto kion * 
a” * oauc ano eiud ob ade td — fit — Cone | sal ꝛo bau — sed Py E 













* banletde tee eters el <u 
.? dota awed 10 we sasid ovetiod ereqory bivoo oat oat * ae 
eaan an tee eeonrie od? of emo of — — — 





on Kr. Donovan and teok with her the $1000 policy. Upon the trisl 
she was asked whether at that time she knew of the exiatence of a 
—*— ingued to her son, to whigh she replied, "lo, I aid 
not.” The attorney for defendant objected to this as inmmeterial, 
which objection wae wusteined. hie teetiweny wae eacpetent, and 
the objeetion should have been overruled, Mr, Dosoven asked her if 
ehe had the poliey, to which she reviled im the affirmative ond 
handed the $1000 policy to tim; after examining it he told her that 
the company was not Lisble thereon as thure was some question sur. 
Founding the death of her aon; she inquired am to the reason de- 
fendant eould not pay the amount of the poiley und Ur. Denevan 
read some Neweoaper clippings concerning her son's death; he kent 
on reading them until, pisintiff eaays, she *orekxe down;" he then 
said to her, “I will offer you Half the policy « $800;" »laintirr 
declined to accept this; Xr. Donovan ieft the rocm bat returned in 
about fifteen minutes and offered her $900, saying thst if she did 
mot accept thie ashe would have to wait two yours and then maybe 
weuld not get anything; ehe finally said, in effect, that she 414 
net wart any Litigation ever $100 snd would agrees to take 9900 ae 
she needed the money, “rather then wait twe years for the 31000;" 
iy, Denevan then gave her a check fer $900, tegether with a paper 
which she wae asked to eign; plaintiff telé his: ehe eould net read 
the paper as she did not have her spectacies with her and her eyes 
were sore fren orying; that dr, Donovan said, "Shere is nething to 
it eoxeept concerning your boy'a deuth apd we have te put it om Tlie," 
the paper was not read or explainei to her, except as ctated; she 
accepted the check and signed the paper and delivered up the $1000 
policy te Mr. Sonovan; nothing was sald about any $2500 policy. 

It has been repeatedly held that a release even under seal 


is net a defense in an action at law if its execution is procured 


















tated ond ndqQ! .godtoq 00049 oid aed dtiw anos pane — “. 
a to gansfaiae ec) to wead oda aaba sods ta ended Seine enw oi 
bin I , ait” (Deltqen ade dotmw of 108 aed os font. a8 
fabretemms ae aint os heteahse tagdne tos wer ‘yoann tia ith 
baw — sae ‘eapaldeod waft ——— * sot tos dao fo tite 
‘ti tod hades anvened ot  .bediereve aed ove bingade aottootso oad 
hae ovldsart'tte sat af nad Lea xia ‘bnew oe yWellog ong bart ede 
faut sod Biot oa a4 galoivaxe tote yaks of Ketteg ooo st ute — 
Aue 02 tas.up pane maw onsity on aooxsdt oldeds fon nae qaagmon als 
“ob abaasaa old OF Ha boxdxped ody pape TaR te ¶s aut — le = 0 
oer ae * “qalsey wait te fava on wey You 8 * * 


















at beaten tus aor eas ot04 aevones, * ery te —— —* be 


ask —— 


BEB ode TE fest gutyoe ,0008 xed SereT1e hae astwatia n tuo 
edyam met hax etsoy od thaw of orad Stwow oda atid 2qoeen Yon 
bhh ods tadt ,toeYte al —0* teat? oda jpmkiryne top tons iow 
ae ooed das oo ootae b tuau haa oss uve — — — ts ae 2 * 4 — 
* quose eat tot otesy aw⸗ show aadt wena — oat be poet : : 
wouag & Ad be teitenos 0098 as? deeds 2 xed: ‘ova aadd maven . aa 


best toa biuea oxim std bioe Tedd atat ime oF poaue, Piel —* 











An ao at bles od eved oe hee ater wget or pate ona. — we 
Tel: oa jhetare ef sqoone «tual at bratazexe 20 base tail — 


—3 on toe —— 


00088 od? qe bewvileb beue —2 outs —8R ba Aono, at 


ay ye re / 


seotiog OOBRS va⸗ ‘tuede bles aa uabiton jamrenest sot 
teoe reba avvo — * dads bout eihesanan 1 


rer 4 ‘ 
Le Pues 


_ hommes au ae taivon· aa u wes te wonton | - had ec to ie 
















ov 


by Traut jor slroumvention. Ii). Cont. Fy Ne Co, ve Veloh, 5? 
Tll. 283; Fapke vy, Hammond Gg., 192 111. 632; 1, DB, & ¥, By. So. 
v. Fowler, 201 Tli. 18%; Chiomgo City By. Co. v. KeOlsin, 2 T12. 
599. <A varty should not be persitted to perpetrate a fraud and 
reap the benefits, Leonard v. Springer, 197 121, 532, 

On referring te the abstract wo do not find the release , 
but wo are referred tea the reeord. It has bean repeatedly eald 
that we need not go te the record in order to find reasons for 
revereal. Morris v, Areici, 347 T1l. 391, 

However, on oxacining tac form of release in the reeord 
we find no reference therein to the policy for $1000, which was the 
aubjeet matter of the transaction between Mir. Sonevan and plain- 
tiff. The paper purperte ta release sll elaime on an insurance 
policy, Sc. 417864, whieh ie the number of the poliey for $2800, 
Sven if plaintiff head read the paper 14 would bave told her nothing 
of the $2506 polier, of whose exieatence she was ignorant, a8 she 
eould not be expected te rote the mrabera om the poiiaies; she weuld 
Tearomably assume that che wae releasing her claim en the #1006 
policy. Defeniant's agent knew of the 127600 poliey and (t in evle 
dent that the insertion of tta number in the releese instesé of 
the number of the 91000 golicy was o frawd upen plaintiff. 

. Defendant says that there can be ne reeevery in this case 
unliese plaintiff tenders buek the $800 raid her, “he general rule 
is, that where s relesse hae been obtained by freud no return ef 
the money paid in neeeesary in order te enable the defrauded one 
te recever the preper wsount. The oase cited by defendant is to 
this effect, Litehfield kadinom Ky. Co. ve Shuler, 134 211. App. 
615, Gea aleo Pawnee Coal Co. v. Royce, 164 113. 402; 6, NH. 1. & 
2. By. Co, v. Lewis, 108 Til. 120; Sorthey v, ©. GC, ¢. @ St. 2. 
Ry. Go,, 951 Tl. App. 885. Nowever, defendant canmet complain, 











ac ae SA Sti ongade. (SEL, ar poe x 
De ke o.sterseeng ot. pray ay BE SOM, ** * * — 
—— Yeand. ft 8 xen, 
i vente, pdt Dat tem ob aw teartade ga? of ꝛatruev· Mo oy 
hoe Usbetesqet, sped gad 22 .bagoet_ aes of deure'tox J — 
Tot wronaes batt of Rahnn at frooet eid oF og ton Beng fet 
— J A —— 
Proves oid ‘ae eeeeies ‘to aro eft gakeioune a6 sHorewed 
edd enw snide ,OOOL) tot yoliog mat of mimunelt gpmeye tos, — 
eriele ban arelt. A mowed. mal sonanerg ont to, stem, toptde 
sonata ae oo eulais Lis gaaolet of adiogteg teqeg, oat mt, 
4 OHNE Or yottog out te redewa ons at sokiw » DORE ce —J 
196 Biot owes, biwow #2. aageg, wit hoon, hes Tittate te 2. 
ie os ,esetenal ear stim eaaeds bem. peodw. ‘Te 9 qed © : 
4 binow exe peeleting 90% se sxedinn, ogt nt98 09 DRTRM * 




















Pere ey 
des ab gt baa i tidin — oe t wana, — — swpbog, 
: t est dastt ta9 
coon 0 
ene 2idd al ytoveoen of ad ane otras perp ayer ioe si 5 ob 
* semen, of ted diaz OOO) edt Aned amehaee Witeatesy qnetay 
ine oth 














ae oe Rob. Att OL . oped. Ni) Ag a —* 
inh lB — — 
—B—— ferams dnnhaetoh ,tevewsk te <a 





for the jury was instructed by the court, in substance, thet if 
they should assess plaintiff's damages at $2500 they sheuld de- 
duct the sum of 9900, whieh apparently was done, Plaintiff might 
complain, for thia $900 was given in settlement of the $1600 
policy and has no conmection with the $2500 policy, the subjeet 
matter of this sult. Govever, plaintiff assigns ne crose-errors, 
There were no reversible errors in the instructions, and 
as the only proper verdict was returned the judgment is affirmed, 
AFYFIFUED, 


Batehett and O'Conner, ¢7., concur, 





ror edt yehivg GORE e 
—— on aglose ——— — 2 — 
— —— =e 









f 















‘i 





—J i FB Oe ‘ee 





ath mul ee alert 
Sinn 





sella Shak 











36303 





b 
— \4 
: ¥ we 
In the Katter of the Petition of tt a 
STANLEY BAPIA, Insolvent Debtor, > ae 
Appellant 
‘ APPEAL ¥ UNTY COURT 
va. 
uty, 
WILLIAM G, LANGR, Administrator of } F \ 
the Batate of John Lange, Deceased, j 
Appellee, Neh: 
270 I.A. 618' 


BR. JUSTICE MATCHET? DELIVERED THR OPINION OF TH COURT, 


Bafia, judgment debtor, having been arrested on a gapiae ad 
Satiefaciendum issued upon the petition of the judgment ereditor 
pursuant to the provisions of section 62 af shapter 77 of the 
statutes (Smith-ilurd's [il, Rev, Gtats., chap. 77, sec. 62, p.1774), 
filed a petition praying that he wight be released under the provi- 
sions of the Insolvent Debtera act (Gmith-Hurd's 111. fev, State., 
chap. 72, pp. 1634-8). 

The izsues were submitted to a jury, motions ef petitioner 
for a peremptory instruction in his faver naving been denied, The 
jury returned a verdict finding petiticner guilty ef having fraudue 
lently conveyed, concealed er otherwise disposed of some part of 
his estate with a design te secure the same to his own use or to 
4efraud his erefiters, The jury aleo returned a verdict that peti- 
tioner was net guilty ef unjustly refusing to surrender his estate 
not exempt. The court heaving overruled petitioner's motions for a 
new trial and in arrest, entered judgment remanding petitioner tio 
the custody of the sheriff of Cock county, and this appeal is from 
that judgment. 

it is asserted in behalf of petitioner that the capias 
issued without compliance with the provisions of section 62 ef 
chapter 77; that the verdict is not supported by the evidence; that 
the court erred in instrueting the fury; that the finding ef guiity 
ie contrary to the law, and tuat the motion of petitioner for a new 
trial should have been granted, 


iy to aoLihte’ axe Yo costed ost al 
—— —— page YRAMATS 






— — 





vis wie REE RON RRR Sa — i Loe 

; ae Et ogee ‘let on ae 
810 * 0 ¥- Seaoetalibromemnees bor gwen 
— — i — 


— sat * ——— on omni ‘rewsiogax sore oi 


Baan ya 


be aalgen ano heteowie coed gaived ,rosded.tusmbat. vata 0 
‘tosiboth tevmebst ent ‘te aeltiteq edt aeqw baueek —M 
od Te VC «etqese to 86 aolyoon te aaelatvoa eft Bis — 

(OPT L.e@ 88 088 {TT .qads ,.etec8 sek tile bua —* 

wkvorg eit ebay heeselox od tigim en dad? pabyerng ——— omen 
ease .vee . iti a hagll<igtet) gon stotdet feevloeni ait Yo nade 
ABdEOL vag ST — 

toncitiveg to. aseliom ,ytwl a 0¢ batéiadwa ster eounat eat 
oi? hedveh need yatved cove? ali mi ao htowttank eras qaoteg a * 
ephior? gaived te ytliiy vemolsiveg gatbatt so thtev # pomnder tut 
‘te dtag etioe “Io boaoge th satwradde te hefveanos: ~deyevaoe yltael 
 o¢ te eau awe vid ef estan ont etndea of ap teod @ aia be osnsas eet 
abteq Gadd folbioy 2 beotwdet cols yrut est ete? thew okt busowted 
etagas wid tehaetrme of priestot yleawtaw te yd ileg fom aaw somolt — 
# tot enoisom ai ténntsisen boLrvrreve yaived dios off tomes ton 
od seaolsiseq galiaauex gaoeybut hetedae , feerte al bme Lae? wos 
woxt af — naait bee ,¢¥snveo eed To —— od? to. henna * 

peices on? tacit scold ting To Usdin’ ae — a 
te 89 nolsooe To aavlesvery edt wetw soantiqnee ——9 
geuia jooapbive oa? yd betroqque dow at soltany edit ade ANT — 
— to yaksatt edt sect ant of gabtoursemd ad ‘sewey tame oat 
wea # 20% tenvtsigeg Yo aditom od tact bas ,wal odd 08 caas⸗ out 
ohodnaty need avau tues att 








* ay Re 





Section 62 of chapter 77 provides in substance that if 
after the return of an execution ungatistTied, the judgment credi- 
tor shall make an affidavit stating that demand has been made upon 
the debtor for the surrender of his estate for the satisTaetion 
of euch execution, ond that he believes the debtor has estate not 
exempt from execution, which he unjustly refuses to surrender, or 
that ofter the debt was contracted or the cause ef action accrued, 
the debtor has fraudulently cenveyed, concealed or otherwise dis- 
posed of some part of hia estate with the design te secure the 
eame to hiv own use or defraud ale creditors; that if it appears 
that the facts tending to show his beidef is well founded a judge 
of the court may authorize the issuing of an execution against the 
bedy of the debtor, amd that upon the filing of auch affidavit and 
order with the clerk, such execution shall iesue, 

Petitioner contends that ne auch demand was made upen him 
under this seetion of the statute and cites Maher v. Huette, 10 
fil. App. 36. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable. 

The only question under consideration there was whether the return 
of the officer whieh shewed only that the execution was read to 
defendant and tist he was asked to pay it, was equivalent te a de- 
mand thet the debtor surrender his property to be levied upen, and 
it was held that it was net. in this ease the return of the 
sheriff shevs the service of a copy of the execution on January 
22, 1932, by leaving the same for the petitioner with him at his 
usual place of abode, at the same time informing him ef the con- 
tents thereof and demanding money or property te satisfy the writ. 
The return alee states that the copy ef the execution delivered 
had an endorsesent thereon notifying petitioner that he must file 
a tehedule of his property within ten daye in order to claim his 


exexption. The return further states as fellows: 





‘ vo 
tk dad? constedue ad tobivenq ss wages: — *an . 
~ihows sHoamhut ont jbeitelesens ngkevesxe a to mutes edt atte 
soqu sess ‘aeed eed hasawh sais guiiase thvabitte ie whe face ‘soo 
uditea'taites odd 20% etates els dl cebserme ak: sotdon oad 
ton siades eat totdeh edd aavelled ox —E hae: amet twosas dies ong 
Ong srebierthe at seavies uLtautau ed doduw ,sodtyonne mort sanoxe 
»bowrece nolios te eauen ad? 10 betontsace anv gdeb ane rope fade 
~eih geletedie ee be Leeones »beyewnes yids Lubomet ead totdad ous 
_, Sst atupeR ef agiaed ene ddin etaies wht le dteg omed, Re 9009 
ateoqge J2 ik gad iexoiibere eis baewiok 20 ean .00e ehhiet tale 
egbut « bobave't blew el Tohied isi wore of gaibaaa atest eff feng 
ed? tonings nolivoexe pe to potest pat aainentus: wu Pamoe eat to” 
Bes divebl Vie dagen te yailh? end aogm fact bo endow nei te Ybor 
ees stseet Lteda agliugexe dowe ,soeto. ect adie ueiee 
aid aegu saben aevw bowswb Aowe om tals shuotaoe awnekd iewe . 6° soosle 
OL .odeut 9 sak aerhe bar otudude ta? Ro noktuew atid wehmy 
»ti¢edelugntieth eixesio af ,tevewed ,aoeo tent 698 vente see’ 
auaten edt aediety enw exeds soltasshtenoo’ webayw wettesup yine of? 
of baer enw celsuoene edt said ylav hewesin sohir aves tte ectt tel 
-ob @ 0¢ dapinvines saw .o2 yaq of fellee sow ed ted? Rae tembne teh 
hae ,negu boivel ed af \Sueqotq aid tehnessee xetdeb en? gad?) bane > 
982 1g mutes act euee abdd al ..3ea new ¢) tant: bhod-wew D8 / 
————— eet to ¥qoo & te eolvise, odd aver Whteesda: 
ain ga ata dtl xempiiiieg of2 49? seme ong gadvecd yd PECL GRR)” 
-ueo od to wii gatacotal emis oome off te ,ehede Qo sorte! Lesen’ 
tisw eng visitas of ylteqete te Yenom galbanweh dae tooredoegusee 
beteviioh moliveexe ens To qqe8 ost fect uetetnronds ameter set 
iki taum of Sedd tomoidijeg gudvtites aveters  daseonteba maihed® | 
eh hake: 6? 1ebs0 ei o¢eh mee whetie — — ein 
tewetie’ @e estein tedtiet mipset ant .aekie 
oe — —J wahy Sec he vite ede ele ope wee ae — 





* as — * * — 
herve ee ee ae ae 


“I did on the LOth dey of March, 1932, demand cof the within 
nased defesdant, Stanley Bafia, that he pay this execution, or that 
he surrender sufficient of bis estate, goods, chuttels, lands and 
tenements for the satisfaction of thia writ, and I ales informed 
eeid Stanley Bafia that if he failed to comply with sald demud he 
would be liable to arrest upon an execution aguinet his body, and 
alse at the time ef making said demand, I delivered to the within 
named defendant Stanley Safla, « copy or this writ with an endorse. 
ment thereon bearing my signature, notifying him that he must fille a 
sohedule of his property within ten deye from the date of sald dee 
mand, in order to claim his exemption, and ralled te satiefy thie 
writ, or any part thereof,” 


We hold this demand to be sufficient under the etatute, 
It if sreued that petitioner when galled as a witness by resnondent 
denied that such demand had been made upon him, but his test imeny 
is not ecorrobersted in any way, and the law is that the return of 
the sheriff cannet be contradicted by the unsupported testimony of 
the party served. Leitch v. Colson, $ 111. App. 454; Boksa vy, 


Bucnaniee, 246 111. App. G02; Smith vy. gute, 247 L1i. App. 203; 
y CO., 262 113. Agp. 24. If the 





return of the sheriff ia faise or fraudulent, the remedy of a ée- 
fendant is by an setion against him either at lew or in equity, 
Bowen v. Parkhurst, 24 i111. 258; Bunter vy, Steneburner, 92 111. 75; 
2, 369 Ill. 147; Hornik vy, Gussek, 317 





ili. 362, 


Borecver, section 62 of the statute orovides in substance 
that the cavias may iesue under either ef two circumstances: (1) 
if the debter has preperty not exempt from execution which he un- 
justly refuses te surrender; and (2) where the debter has since the 
debt was contracted or the cause of action accrued, fraudulently 
conveyed, concealed, or otherwise disposed ef some part of his 
estate, with a design to secure the seme to his orn use, or defraud 
his creditors, In the first clase of cases, as we interpret the 
atatute, it is a condition prededent that « desend be made, and in 
the second class of cases ne demand i* necessary, According to the 
verdict ef the jury, the conduct ef the petitioner belongs te the 
Second class denounced by the statute, We therefore hold, first, 





aiddiw asd to — — —J en —— —5* me » bist >. 


gen? to .noOktueene eid? yo ea tadd gab ted, eeised® yd — 
,ehooy — oid ts ——— — — 


“terteth? oate 1 euue eldd te agitiestelias edtoaet he yg eed 
ad baseeh Fg he dike <iqmoo of beliat of 22 dad abte® yoluez® & 


hos ,vhed aft Paniege celtugexs as gegw gestws of eddie ts rr 
sideiw oft of boteyifeh 1 ,bewaed biae galian Xs tuts and ts o8 
-e9tahte aa athw Pew elas te eres o ,al tak yo tie buw 
a oilt faue oa tacdd mld gnivtifjon ,stedenglis ya } inaed aeotsdd 
-96 hiss Is ofeb oof wott evab meg wietie ¢esoqote wid te otebecion - 
#8 vhatsoa, a bo Lie" hae — sqnene eid ahate of wees at heer 
 edttete #82 they See tol tive’ og of Daaeet oder ied idee 
srehootest yt aventiw « ee be lino aedtw tenolt iio teed heuer 
(hone dees nll gud atet xoqw wham seed Beit bacmnt sve tune ela 
So wivter git jad of wel ef? Pow , Yow yas of bevetedetrey teamed 
te Yitowtsen? hey omeue te add Yt Retolbeténes ov.¢onmes Tidtede ad2> 
Se aed BAe cyEd VET & oR eeD nb chertew -qemeome 
7808 .egk LE TOO | | 
aug YE a he sk’ ‘_ SES BMG 1 ois 
-tb 2 Io ybono% Si , MaleksesT Co emdet wt ‘Mimedess A auc⸗⸗va 


— * — —— te wend io nist ꝓꝛataia ai ar⸗ mm ud ad tnabus 





















a 





| 2 ees si QO alka. 
 tonetedse af weblvetq ofudate sa? Te 68 Gedtond ee ee 
(L) Tasccmfemwsrts owe “te tai! he robes emeed You gg keep eerste 
<td if deliv vioftxooxe movl tqamete tom Ysteqotg wad Toseed igs RL J 
———— 
yltnsfihoest ,bevtess agides Le eauae 86d 6 beteittaeo.(eaw adel 
ght to Prag eaee To hetoqnth salwiedie co ,delavsang) Soyerads” 
Duatleh to ,980 Me Rid od Saen eed OtNOde OF Mglaod s dAtiw yolatte | 
69% Sonyretal ow om ,adean To abeds tevst odd ah. — E wkd 
xg Sat jeden od hasawh a dads doehebotq nett shaos eed — 
—— owe te ; 9908, 040 — 
o42 of vynolod teagliiieg oad Yo dpuhnoe edt yy set od to biden: 


stand? ,bLod exolered? oF ,etutata edt Yd hoomvomDh easie bases — 





4 


that the demand was eufficient, if necessary, but, second, that 
under the facts here disclosed the dewand was not at a11 necessary. 

The petitioner elao contends that the affidavit of reasond~ 
ent, under which the capiag issued, wae insufficient and eites 
Jhornton v. Davennert, 1 Scam. 296, and Huntington v. Metzger, 52 
Ill. App. 222. The last named case, however, was reversed by the 
Supreme court, 158 111. 272. Moreover, as petitioner failed toe 
raise that question in the trial court by motion to quash, he can 
not raise it for the first time in thie court. Demeer v, American 
dns, Co., 110 Til. App. 580; Glos v. Spitser, 226 111. G2; Birney y. 
Selouen, 348 Til. 410. We hold the affidavit was sufficient. 

It is next contended in behalf of petitioner that under the 
evidence the court showld have direeted a verdict in his faver and 
that, at any rete, in view of the evidence 1t appears that the jury 
must have been swayed in returning the verdict by some eLenent 
other than by the evidence before them. It ia pointed out that 
petitioner was called ase a witnesn by respondent, and it is con- 
tended that having called petitioner as his witness, respondent was 
bound by his testimeny. in view of the conelusion to whieh we have 
come, We shall net undertake te diseuse the weight of thie teatinony 
further than te say that the rule upon which petitioner relies 
originated at a time when under the law the parties to an action 
were incompetent witnesses in their own behalf, and like other rules 
it has exceptions, One of these is that a party whe calle the other 
as his witness is bound enly so far as his testimony is entitled 
te credence, taking inte consideration its resreonableness and all 
other tests of credibility. The rule is one that ie often migsunder- 


stood. Hoekwood v. Poundstone, 38 111. 199; Mitchell v. Sewyer, 


115 Til. 650; Lesher v, Golton, 225 111. 254; Continental Vortiand 
Sement Co, v, Koeh, 211 Ill. App. 93. 


The evidence in this case shows that Lange as adwinistrater 
sued Bafia in the Superior court of Cook county; that on December le, 


« 
fast bases » tad «Sranqegen *4 ————— haw bramed one ads 
z vetaaacese tie ae tom eae: peach welt bos o lonat — ——— ons oe 





os <6 bearers: lad ewan ry tea, —— sat: “eae — 
od bette? sonols iteq Be — vootoll “ate ohh ees. Piven operqee | 
es eM ,daasp 08 volfon yd tusew initt edt ak aolsaoup, tend sates 
Aaan a oF suse .éawop wads af guts seat ota, 0% hones, toe 
— 108, +113 O88 \AOBEAaG 4Y BOsP 1088 womb ALE OF veRBe mm 
-sdngtOAYive saw sivabse odd, died OF Of Leh ene .aseose2 
ods sehen tect xaagdotswn te Sianed af Bebawsaoo dane ot 8h 4 <a 
“hae. tam wat ak tedbioW # Sodnends, om bkueite Pawen-esis momobhs 
Ciutat tal ascnge 24, whee, tui ak yb wat Be, * 
— — Le - came. ge tolttow eat eotaxetet, at dorevs amo evel, 2am 
geht deo Detaleg gt af, meas eteted satahive weld sect reds 
aes eR BE Rs yS aehronses ys. meme bw ete bei las aan ie ae 
tee frehascann jana de wih aeondoo ds hieg Retina: shad tat iader⸗ 
aved ew sipdtw.oy molasiones oct to wale ah sgammttend ahh we hmued 
Yoaisas?s elds te éagteow ods eauoath af oxmdae has ton hed co 
gelser reagls Lieg sp ator sous elute aad tant yoo of onde watuern 
Melies me of aglitagq ent wet wats sebaa sede senso te hom onus & 
aodat Sado — ban ,tiased amo thn mi sonsent be temtogment surw 
waite wit eiaa onw yttaq o dade af evode Ye ono sanohtgeoxo wait ot 
“bedtivnn et yaomkrord ait na sak oa view Ansa: ab nesatin otd ee 
— Sane stom idanomsey ef. nediedbte cies oak: amaraat ,sonopers of 
ebmuetm notte ek fact ene et fim oxi. —— 
— 
staat tatwbsitt aret oN ai 





























1931, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the adminietrater 
for the amount of $5,000, and that December 25, 1931, the court 
overruled the motion of defendant for a new trial and entered 
judgment upen whieh this preceeding ie based. The business of 
petitioner wae that of an undertaker, and the 15th of Deceuber, 
1931, which was five daye after the return of the verdict and 
thirteen days before the entry of the judgment, seams to huve 
been a day of considerable activity on hie part. Un that day he 
executed a chattel mortgage conveying personal property to the 
Standard Casket Co. for a consideration, as alleged, of $1490. 
On the same day he axeouted a chattel mortgage on other personal 
property to Frank Krayelak to secure an alleged indebtednese of 
$1274, On the same day he executed another ehattel mortgage to 
the American Casket Co. to secure an alleged indebtedness of 7 
$445, These conveyances seen to have eovered moat of his personal 
property. On the same day the debtor and his wife executed a truet 
deed to secure an alleged indebtedness in the swum of $5500 whereby 
they conveyed their real estate to Frank Stach, trustee, The first 
mentioned mortgage would become due June 15, 1933, the eeeond 
Oetober 1, 19335, the third January 2, 1933, and that seeured by the 
truest deed would mature by ite teras three years after date. These 
papers seem to have been prepared by the attorney for the debter 
and reeerded by the debtor hinself, The trustee recited that the 
Gebter called him up and requested sin te set. As already stated, 
we shell not undertake to review the evidenes, for the iasue in 
the case wee for the jury. 

it was necessary, however, that in returning their verdict 
the jury sheuld be properly instructed as te the law applieable. 
At the request of the respondent the court gave to the jury the 
following instruction: 


“The court inetruets the jury that a debtor may prefer one 
creditor from another, but if you believe from the evidence in thie 





a 


cedettsbaiate odd ie veve't Ab Jotiaoe a boaruded rut oad (eer 
“gases ont jWede 00 aodmaped dads ban 000,04 Ye fawome 49 aot 
 Pitotae Sas felts wea a te? Fabel eh ‘Ye nelton ott ‘be Lurnove 

‘te waentoud oat — af — “at — —— 








fort #0 seq Bld no Ybivides olderablance — — 
ade od Yeneqote ionenteq heitre vines epegetom fedtade & beduoone 
812 Yo bene Lie wa Sofiereb Lanes a xet ot texead 6 ob | 

faane'teg “oso nO &yeg2 ton fagtado os — on web case hs i ‘ pe 

“td Rnenteddnbat heyotte ne ervoee of daloysed amen’ of vi: 

es wyeys tem Lodtace "teat? ote aetaeeee as —* —2* ails a 4 















inacaved titd to Seom betovos ovat of meee gabe 

dust @ hodveone otlw eid ban wotdeb od yah buee ott i" 

edovsitw' 00889 Yo mum od? af waoube tdvhal boge tka * tuna * —R 

Pee ae ae Ee a ee Be 

| paigoen end eked {0£ wnat oud emored bivew Sgeydson Be ie) 

silt eo Koeaibee gary baw acer \S Yesima’ bedi oid | —— 

esodt Joteb <93te eweoy obted gives atk yd wxwdam biwew be Fe @ 
fash S49 tot Yorrotte one yd botedet¢ amet eva o me 

ext hilt bettie’ ta nn ikt ‘blero WR our 

“pa — ———— bodesuper haw aw abet ‘bett ggg 


A Gem Ba a I ORS ies 
at ovnet ont 0% — 2 ond wolves od odes tebaw gen flaca yi 


ie Ab! ae OR ane enh a DJ a om Me 
nse grate | | “ygiuit ais tot bet wae “oat” 


Soci ak thin wats 
fotsrov ‘eho gatoreter at tone , tevewod esanaenen aoe caw ) 
eidaotiqnn wal eat’ ot aa bodowsdenk ae 


sith Yul en? of oven Pes eit? taebmegese 


















fay, pers 












, J oft: 
ems tstetq Yau totdeh a sass unt ont” ——— — * 
abit at soneblye edt aot evelied way Xb dad A mc ei 


ease that euch preference, if any, was made for the purpose of 
hindering and delaying other creditors, then such preference, if 
any, would be fraudulent." 


By another instruetion given at the request of respondent the 
jury was told: 

: See Af you believe from the evidence that the mortgages 
executed by the petitioner, Otenley Bafia, to certain of his 
ereditors, were executed to secure « bone fide debt, yet, if you 
further beliewe that said mortgages were executed for the purpose 
of hindering and delaying other ereditors of eaid Stanley Balla, 
then you should find fhe petitioner guilty.* 

It is urged that both these instructions are erroneous upon 


the authority of Belson & Company v, Leiter, 190 111, 414, and 
. fi ¢ als § : : TARE 249 oe Ape. 237, 





It is urged that these instructions in effect teld the jury that 
petitioner might be found guilty if the preference given would 
have the effect or was intended to hinder and delay hie ereditors, 
and that such statement of the law is inecorreet and misleading. 

it is not teue that every conveyance which has the effect 
of hindering and delaying ereditors or which results in giving 
ether creditors a preference, ia fraudulent. iIn the quite reeent 
case of Hurt v. Ghimen, 349 Lil. 163, the Supreme court said: 


"It is well established by the decisions of thie court that 
a debtor may prefer one creditor over others when he acts without 
fraud, even though he transfers all of his property to the pre- 
ferred creditor. RK o S331 221. 230; 

J » 130 id. 405;) *** Cilreumstanees show: by the 
evidence from which s& conelusion that the transaction was fraudu- 
lent might be drawn may be overcome by evidence establishing the 
goed faith of the transaction. Zwick v. Gatavenie, 331 Ill. 240." 


As was said in Neleon & Co, vy, Leiter, 190 Ill. 414: 


“The test te be applied is whether the debtor, in exercising 
the privilege of making the preference, acta in good faith, with the 
intent to pay, er secure the payment of, s just indebtedness against 
him, and he cannet be deprived of the right on the ground he knows 
or intends that the preference given to ene crediter, to the extent 
such preference shall be available and effective, will operate to 
hinder and delay other ereditore." 


The first instruction complained ef was erroneous in that 
it announced to the jury that if a preference was’ made for the 


purpese of hindering and delaying other crediters, such preference 





oe 


te — eit 292 has eaw oe hd 3* ewe toad cnn 
vb eapeniated fiown woe” uN yaloh hime 
——— id bivew Ae] 


te — 
wid ane hayonen te senupen ot, te sorts uoitourdoad re ona ww 
eee — ap ek 
| | Sikes — 
thm pais pasts — ed ay 34 wee ts on ad 
“gin ‘ty atafzes of ,sftel qinugt jwaetrbtey edt xd botepene 
wey th ,foy ,tdeb obtt anod a emmesa 0% betuoexe otew —— 
welts Set “LOT Raduoexe ex6W Regegdtoe Kies fadd owwhied: tt 
aptiad yolsase biee Lo exosibere xeddo pacetee fae nee bas 22 
spi * “riley whnois he oy * oe 
HOGM euoenorT® ots onoltourtead seed crow sade bogus as MR) oer 
fine Ab 0602 COL Seeey ? | | a 
{VER Vqgk LE OOS  auet oF et0 wrooM ov Dirk ene te apet wtede 
dond Yuu oMd bios Pos'tte ul aaekioortods panne gunaly — 
“ plugw nevig venere'teg ems YE eo ann bowel of ee ae 
ss0d thes wid yatoh Se vebald ot betuntit cow to doaithe ene wvaat 
' ~yathootete hae dae dons wh ea wt Le eatin Et ‘ owe tend ao . 
 Pwotte odd ead ifoldy doowyovncs vrowe sad) wwsd don el Ce a ‘ 
“ gHvhs Ah ee fveot Ho tte xe Wiottions ‘galyett baw patsobntd to 
‘gusset otlup od9 al” .soetwhdet't al jsdasxe tg @ etetthow wate ‘ 


“thies ftaer jarani eee ,80£ ELT WBS (ame 


P ae roe 


























“tuodd te ates aa ae cy —* ava ————— 
‘ooty oat of —— he a ore timers 


— saw iy — * * sent r ‘ 
“ent Sates tiga. 86 SSteblve yd oa 
— . J 


hte Ath oer «dad bk 


——— ak ,toideh as? s)8Mtedw 4 —— * ae 5** 
ad? dtiw ,daiat beag ai —4 —— 


jsaiage oayate? totes ei a “ ue pron oy om lo —*8* ⁊o xe: 2 ae 
avout at buivoty oa? no ent Te bevicger one 


tmteo oct of Boye Bhee don : 4 +! 
er ow ikw erieotie. ae ‘od Linde’ —8* a 
SM s@ted Shere: veto “aie bas hie eel 
teas oh ewoanorts anew te — moltoutsent Saat ont J 
eet tot Show pawsgnaereterg © © tt sade cmt * bad heasemane ot 


—W 


reece dba paver tbers neato patentee: 9— aubvebats 18 beatae . 






9 


would be fraudulent; and the second instruction complained of was 
erroneous in that although the mortgages were executed to secure a 
bona fide debt, yet petitioner was guilty if they were executed 
for the purpose of hindering and delaying hie other orediters. That 
is not the correct rule. ‘very debtor in failing circumstances whe 
gives te one erediter »o conveyence of his property by way of secu- 
rity or satisfaction, must knew and must therefore intend, that it 
will hinder and delay the creditors whe are not preferred. The real 
test which should be applied is whether in making that preference 
the debter acts in good faith with the intent to pay or secure the 
payment of a just indebtedness agsinet him. He has a right to give 
preferenee to one erediter over another, and he has a right legally 
to intend the inevitable reeualt that his other debters may not get 
anything at all but he must not set im bad faite. He must not make 
and execute a security which he has ast intended setuaily to be a 
security at all. %e has ne right to ereate an instrument indicating 
his intention te pay whe it is the intention of the parties te it 
that it shall net amount to payment. When os debtor does in goed faith 
convey with the intention and purpese te pay or secure his ¢rediter, 
the transaction is net areaiiable upen the ground that it is fraudu- 
lent, sitheugh the effect of it mist be to pestpene and hinder the 
collection of claims of ether creditors. These instructions were 
wreng end should not have been given. 

For the error in that regard the order ie reversed and the 
cause resented for another trial. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED, 


ReSurely, P, Fee and O'Connor, Jes eongur. 





i. 


bal 


sew “te pombe Lean molioutiant baesea o8? bas ine Subvent ad biuow 

e etumes of — eta eegnyttom edt " danadede. tase ob “axonagsa 
Hosineme Grow qous BL YdLiug Baw renokeltog dee ,s4eh. abel. aged : 

gaat wecetibete tadje ald guiyetobh San yaltebais te oeegtee oad x0 
este sonmndsuvorlo ages yng ak nosdeh — seuss sat —* at 


*0 — wroaoaa ake Yo, ———— * ——— ‘ne. ~ * 








———— seat gation at sostgociw at —R od 6: * 
out exnose x0 wed o⸗ —— eal id be atist boon ak —2 —* 
ovtn oa faye rs anit ek i elit faateae sedabeseybat ‘pent ow - 
wiLenet fiiyix 2 nail od ‘bas vtditone eve tod ibows eae oe? some | 
tea toa ing —R resid @ oki seat tivact ‘eLdad bwestt oat Siniead es 
eden toa tans oi oat nk had at toe toa fam eat ‘tet “ ‘a 
a od 08 lawton bebood at toa ‘aan oa fod ——— lil * — 
patteokbat Snnseaa sth ae —28 o — oa end a “tie de ctimwnee 
ai oa avisteg adi to nedsuod ad ‘eat 4 “an ‘cone el ‘of oa limobak Ghat 
Sod tteda 31 Geas 


3 tnt boos al Brak — a er stones of “Parone doa 
— ans euugeR te Dae of * bus 2** seit oa “rte hw xorntos 


—— 
















% 






edt Stn hostess of teb%9 sald, penny fais wy xoxo, om ae os 


eae enetsoutieat ones saan thane. = é te 


, ar. as J —— mae ie Pipe ae 
* * ~ATEEHA IIR, HA. —— * Le i duit ee er yn aL rags 83 


"as a S tan ae 





= ee = : * 
i Vee hee. gehata 


. ty ae 
Heh ath eb Pepeite —X “tt & 
Se? hag cane 


,TTA LHS eae pet Oop dene ho —E 





DEHA BRADLEY, 
Appellee, 






— 


EROUIT COURT pining. 
ve. 


MRS, K. LANGDON, i 
Appellant. ) 


— 


¥ COOK couNTY, \ 


% 


270 L.A. 618 


BK, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THB COURT. 


This is an apneal by defendant from a judgment in the sum 
of $1000 entered unen the verdict of the jury, after motions for 
a new trisl and in arrest had been overruled, in an action on the 
eave for nereonal iniuries, 

The deelarstion was in two counts which in substance 
averred that the plaintiff, while riding in an automobile on 
September 6, 19%1, in a westerly direction on the north side 
of Mast Forty-sixth street, Chicage, was injured as a remnlt of 
& Geliision with an sutomebile driven by defendant in a northerly 
direction om Geuth Michigan avenue, Each cf the counts averred 
that the negligence of defendant wae malicious, wilful, wroneful 
and umlawful, and damages were claimed in the sum of $20,000, 
Defendant filed a plea of the general issue, 

Defendant contends that the judement should be reversed 
because there was no evidence tending to suppert the charge that 
the negligence wes wilful, wanton end malicious, and because the 
weight of the evidence was in favor of defendant; that the court 
erred in ite rulings upon the evidence offered; that the etate- 
ments and remarks made by the court during the trial were imoroper 
and prejudicial to defendant, and thet there were serious errors 
in the giving and refusing of instructions, 

Ag to the contention of defendant tiat there is no proof 
im the record terding te sustain the charge taust the negligence 
averred was wilful, wanton and malicious, we agree that the evi- 


dence wholiy falls to disclose any negligence which might properly 





imum anit at ‘Prose bat, ⸗ | oe Pachaetes, 4 — th, clk — 
“get anoltom ‘xog'te sent ode ‘to dolbrey edt soge Some t ones a) 
oti a0 Roktos: 4 — ——— ao od bat taper. nt, Lie Sets wan a 
cin | * 9 sMARRMtaL fanees 
nh soundadus an —0 anes owt at, uew — om 











‘he othe 

mo eihdenodus cas at math i onte  Tthtstely sae: — ——— 
— e106 att ne sol toonen ‘Yirodeew a at , et. 4p matin 

“to thueor @ as borcutnt nay open tty teoneT —2* sre J ’ 

Ulted@ton « ni tnabac'teb vw sevinh (bitdometue me atte ————— 


bitters ednwoo ex? to sont ounsv⸗ * c 
Aithytots tartt ———— sow tne dao dud ‘Vo poaeyt. 








| ‘te, ee ‘te ae ong mt bontte te oro 9 ba. w Ces 


ute tere, ade to sete 2 betta, ee 
hats ak of Stone snes bit, ott fede abate, nee, ¢ : 





tat paretio eng ‘Procque ot aedbimd * phtyy on aay. rans 9 —* oe * be ‘ 
and berosad bits epoke Liaw hota’ od ahetahe a2y 99 nab id 


Sruoo edt test (snabee teh Rand rove a sc Sonsbive .othte 


~otate euis “tails — — ——— Me. Hogi agat. ——— bares os 
wwaotoal orew falas walt ; 

















erorte evotiea over Pro ‘tads hiss (dash no'teb of — — ban 


* Bas 
Molton eal to gutevter * 
toorg ow at arestt teit tashas'ted to ao tia9¢st09 add, had ah 


— —— — 


—E out tad? eytene wats Alateun of gatbasd b o! 







-ive paid sass soTgs ow eewoke Lhe baw aostaay J 





ereqorg daly der sly 2etw eouy tigen wae eeoloath pe pra 


be Aesignated as wilful, wanton or malicious. There was subsaitted 
to the jury, however, what the record designates as a speeial ine 
terrogatery but what in reality was a written instruction by 
which the gourt told the jury that pevore defendant could be 

Tounmg guilty of wanton and wilful conduct, the jury must fled by a 
prependerance or greater welght of the evidence (1) that the ale 
Leged act of defendant in injuring pislatiff was intentional on 
the part of defendant, or (2) taat the alleged act of defendant 

in infuring plaintiff was committed under suea circumstances as 
exhibited a reekless disregard for the salety of others, auch as 
& failure, after knowledge of the impending danger, te exercice 
ordinary care te prevent it, er a iailure te discover the danger 
through reeklesaness oF cargleseness when it could have been 
discevered by the exereise of ordinary care; that if they were 
unable te find from a preponderance or greater weight of the 
evidence that elther one or both of tae @iements above set forth 
were present in cennecticn wits the alleged aeta of negligence on 
behalf of defendant, then taey should Tind defendant not guilty of 
Wanton and wilful comduct. fhe court gave this so-called ine 
terrogatery te the jury and oraily gave the fellewing direction 

in respect taerete: 

. “If you believe tuat she was guilty ef wilful and wanton 
conduct, then each of you will sig under the heading, ‘Yesa'; if 
yeu belleve that she was not guilty of auch conduct, then each of 
you will sign under the heading ‘No.'* 

In response te this direction the jury answered yes. ee 
While there was a motion for a new trial by defendant, the 
record falls to disclose any motion to set aside the so-called 
anewer to the so-called interrogatory; and plaintiff now contends 
that defendant having recucsted the court to submit thie special 
interrogatory to the jury cannet cuestion the propriety of ite 
submiesion, and that ar the record fails to disclose a motion 


by defendant to set aside the special finding of the jury, defendant 


















| : bord iadia aan oxedt eaelokian te aod naw — — « Dogan ? 
| ont Leloaqe 80. arsengtanb btover ast dna , ven we gest, ons oe 
 ‘“¢ selioautens nod hiow & Raw eo hides * date dad rodajense? 
av disco damban ted eteted ted? Yrut ont hued | sahil ‘id Kio bat! 
err ak? dean ett esta vtoubago LWwiklw hue aoguee te ei tiny ‘bawot 
eka Gs? tan? (L) esnohive oi to ddyiee tedsexg 20 soamrabnogeng 
me fousiecednd wa Tiktalaty gatiutal al tabddeeh te dos Reged 
 gaabae tab Ia Jog. — edd dead (8) 49 — — out 








CE PRS SR REIN, on, re Aad 10 an 2 ana tous ‘oanob! . 


he Ph * ve pei 





ak beling-oa — yan TIMOR a. i — — 


eS — * —9 


mobteotib gakweliel eda #vag there hae eau, ast ot — ext 











feteas hae Lattin te tihng naw ade teil Svekiad weg eh 
J — — * ve Lee ee — 

‘dome. seas DHHAGR Mnwe My TOR BHY OLE F. ov: 
enn gig we — er? whe mete 





“battno=o8 — 9 ‘fa’ at it ae “gua —XR or asin areoer 
————— wort bid oats hie * acn oF es, ny 








“adh Yo ‘qolraoxe ang ‘waited — rit ony ont an mt 
om ——— Pi pao touts os erie mtboanr bial * tats iy yo haw mean 


is conclusively bound by it. Plaintiff cites Brimie v, Belden 
Mfg. Co., 287 111. 11; Brant v. Chicage & Alten RK, BR, GCo,, 294 
Ill. 606, and other cases which in substance hold that a motion 
for a new trial is not equivalent te a »otion to set aside a spe- 
eial finding of the jury, and that in the absence of auch motion 
the party submitting the interrogatory is bound by the answer to 
it. The record shows that the interregatory was tendered by de- 
fendant, but the record dees net show that the oral instruction by 
the court with reference thereto was at defendant's request, and 
the instruction was given ite interrogatory ferm by the eourt 

upen hie own motion. iiewever, defendant made no objection thereto, 
and, we hold, is not now in a vosition to assign error thereon, 
However, a9 a matter of fact, the instructione to the jury given 
by the court at the request of both parties show that the case was 
tried uven the theory that it wae an ordinary case of negligence, 
in that both sets of instrvetions treated’ the quertion ef cone 
tributory negligence as applicable te the facts of the cage and 
without distinguishing, ae a matter ef law, between an action for 
wilful, wanton and malicious negligence snd one in which the 
negligence was not wilful, wanton and malicious. Having submitted 
the case upon that theory, it will be reviewed by this court from 
that standpoint. 

Irrespective of other errore assigned upon the record, we 
hold the comtention of defendant that the verdict is against the 
manifest weight ef the evidence is contreliing. 

The accident through whieh plaintiff was injured occurred 
Sunday, Septeriber 6, 1931, at about five o'clock p. m, Plaintisr, 
whe lived at 5039 Forrestville avenue, was st that time riding with 
her relatives, Mr, and Mra. James Hunley, who resided at 4955 — 
Calumet avenue. Hr. and Eres, Manley ealled for plaintiff; they 
were driving a Chrysler car, which she entered and Mr, Nunley then 


drove from Vorrestville avenue to 46th street, a public highway 





— —— — — — — — 


——— —— — — — — — — — — 
— 


—— — — — a 





— — 


= 


adh eo trwt veh bne horegne —* me hete 108. ro fayrsd * 






gasto TAsaielt 482 ef Dawod. eLevinwiome: et 
| L140 LMP NBR oy 90: sat 
ank¢om @ tec? Dblod. esnetaden at doldw, aeaen todde bow (800-,4L1 
~sqe # @bies see of molvox # of taeleviuen ton et Letts wax apt0? 
Montes dere bo wonends e8t af ducg doe ,ysat odd te aatbat? fete 
of vewene odd ed bowed oh yrodagertedmt odd gale? iodee yteee ont 
ooh yd — saw YxotagoTietal pale tact swoste Hreoes. of — 
Cd aeteoutsens fasa oct todd words som geod Preewt edd ted ysaakapt 
ban ,feeupet e/tushas teh te saw oteteds soneie tos atiw trnee ame 
davon esd Yd anol yxodagotre? ak axl asyig egw noldountand oxid 


, tered? solseetdo om ebac: duabas'tob ,teveweh  .seltom ayo sisi mogy 


-opapeted? texte ngiees of coldieog # at mem doa 6h bloc. ew yhae 
wevin: etal a) of anolftomttent off , tect. he. Kelas £ Be 4g ROVE! 2 
av gage e893 todd were aetiaeq ded le trewpet edt fay — 
comet igen to edeo ytenth<o oe maw of det yanset: ott mogw bebet 
whan Te aoktaonp. otf Setaest enoltourtant te age. Hitod tanit * 
Ls hae o8ag od Yo ston? of8 of oldertique, sa conrad inng wre * 
Teh Melion om neewied ——————— we ah 
odd dotds at pao bas Spmegtigon auetedion bas. norma tend ‘ 
bate iadve gaived .eveloiiam has aotsew ,lu2tiw som sar some ) 
matt dcwoo aksid YS howelvor od ftw ot ,yroeds, dacs, — * 
ow rahe att meas benatens anonss: —* item * * ay 
va⸗ ee aa tolbuey. ad anit aaanas toh te “apiiae2a09, ‘eas hte 
salitorda0o et eonebtve ovis * tag bow a0 foiet 
“berrmese horcwtak ane e ata ic sotde — — ont 


stingers oo Dal toolo's avi suede ta Heer 2 ———— — 



























ne vite A ey i: og at me — * 
—2 — ————— n't hetteo eta exit pews mit enases a mks 
—— 


iy * re a ee y a ai: 


——— alidue « — Preys ot neva ‘eLlavesesxol 





4 


extending east and west. They procecded west on 46th street and 
approached Michigan avenue, snether public highway which extends 
north and south. On the east side of Michigan avenue was a side- 
walk about eight feet wide. There was a stop sign on the north- 
east corner, and ir, Nunley says there was a terrace just ahead of 
the sidewalk about 17 or 15 feet wide, and that the distance be- 
tween the curbstone and the sidewalk was about 17 feet. The stop 
sign was about a foot east of the east sidewalk of South Michigan 
avenue and about 25 feet from the highway. The treffie on Miehi- 
gan avenue was proceeding north on the east side of the street 
and the Sunleys testified that they stepped their ear cast of 
Michigan evenue, walting for the north and south traffic to pase; 
that during that time defendant approached from the south going 
nerth on Michigan; that she came at a “pretty good eapeed.” ir, 
Sunley says: “She got te the eorner and a few feet from the 
corner she made a sudden turn like this (indicating.) ly ear 
was setting ever on the northeast cormer and she ran right inte my 
ear and knecked it up on tie side gurb." He says that his car was 
about three feet from the north curb of 46th street and was nerth 
of the center line of 46th street when the car of defendant struck 
it and knocked it over the curbstene, injuring pisaintiff, 
Defendant, on the contrary, says that at the time in ques- 
tion she was driving north en Michigan avenue near 46th street; 
that she had ceme from Garfield boulevard and was going directly 
north on Bichivan to her bome at 3412 Sort I — that ss 
ehe approached 46th street she was driving about 20 miles an 
hour; that there was « car ahead of her and one or two care pock 
of her; that she did not notice the car in which plantiff was riding 
until she (defendant) wae within three or four feet ef the south 
eurb; that the car in whieh plaintiff was riding vasthen about 
ten feet east of the corner on 46th street; that the bunley car 


was then going about 15 or 20 miles an hour and that it came out 


‘ 


Sag. deotls Adah wo teow bobsesetg yoRt weer bs F608 —8R 
whawtee deluw yrudgid oiidug pediens ,simevad sey dial besesony 
ohis.& ow QuneTe Meghiold Yo shis tame ene nO .Atwow bite’ —* 
asian ost Kee BLA OSs fs saw etedt: — dee gilyte! soda aiaw 





to, heetia Paul Cnetis? £ saw isa aged vs Acum⸗ oth Bae e testo jase 
06 gomadath ont tase bas yobiw toot BL 46 VE Subda ainowbte oad 
qote edt stot VL duote enw dLewoble edt baw onosedany estt aomwt 
megideli duel to dhaweste teas etd Y6 teas feet a fuede caw ayte 
shded me oLtiett toe" OS ducda bas eunees 
teerta ott ‘to wbte tnee edt ne dete enw dain * J— 








seasa e¢ olthen? dtyos bas dition ese ug giitiow imal naa * 
getica métvoa ect oewarana SoahinTab wats Sah amt axa / 
3% * beggn beng ettery” « cal omag one dems “ung ip 2 P 

it sont dook wold # bas taares oad oF toy one | “eager et 
nate 08 (.gntdaokhut) adit edhe wae nubbin @ bee ott ‘ebbieeh 
UK edad sighs Ast ooo bar tomey tonearten ane oo ——“ 
anew awe etd tadd eyan o%, * deuw ohio eid: 00 ey Ht Besioomnt bine a8" 
dd1am eae ban Gearte ated to Gum Aeron! OM) HORT Fook betty Fuge 
Mguite taadaoteb to. two os? nese Seonde Ageh to otk s wna 
WWisakalq patrwhal ,eaotadtwd ef weve £2 er * 
~soup at ont? oud te dad? ayee ,vteTI noe est mo » dander toe” 
pteette dt0s t200 euneye mage ti so ator’ nat vtah atin ott 
vagooneh gaioy sew bas beavelued bieitxsd mort sees bail ot sent 

* tasit ‘ikea Avo SBE se eared tod ot ry kito 20 mo “exo 

Pho ne aotim Of sjueds gatvick saw ode toette Aedh bo Adnda ges one 

* dead. Oxao OWS TO 900 bas TOR To heore td # naw eros dura pawert 

aakhiy caw Thitastq sotdw at tay ont websted son Rib dite sass’ — 

Aauos eds to d002 xuot xo eordt abithe eiw (tuabtie'teb) ode tha 

tusde nedteww yathix au Vridalete soide ad tae oat tele! es” 
eo, atid oad Lad psoorte Atdh wo rento9 eal 10 one 5 ‘3 oe 


CSR 


tuo omao th dadd bag xwod ne aetim ORE: 26 deta qakey ends awe? i 


























about the whole length of the car inte Michigan avenue; that de- 
fendant turned to the right quickly and applied the brakes, and 
in that way the front wheel of her car came into contact with 

the rear wheel er tires of the Funley car; that she was about 
three or four feet from the [wiley car when it came to a stop, and 
that Nunley was driving along the senter of the atreet. Defendant 
gays that she got out of her car after the aceldent, and that the 
people in the Bunley car immediately »ent across the street to 
some building, and that Mr, Nunley did not come back for about ten 
minutes; that she galled for an officer but could not find one; 
that kr, Kunley asked her for her name and address, which she 
gave him. Ghe says that she was not injured aid did net see any- 
body in the other ear injured. “She saye positively that Nunley's 
car was nlmuost full length inte the street; that between the rear 
of hie car and the east curbetone of Michigan there vere probably 
four or five feet; that the ‘ront part of his car was out in the 
center anyway; that her car was a LaSalle about five feet wide: 
that she turned east to avoid hitting the hood of Hunley's car 
and hit the rear wheel; that there eas not mough space for 
another automebile te pass between the curb and her car when it was 
stending there after the accident. 

Florence Riley testified for def endant thet she saw the 
accident; that she was ridiag in an sutexobile with a Mr, Nugent, 
who was at the time of the trial somewhere in the east; that she 
Was riding nerth en Michigan avenue behind the defendant's north- 
bound car that was involved ic the accident and about three or 
Tour feet from the rightehand curb; that ag they approsehed 46th 
street the car in which she was riding wae being driven about 20 
to 2% miles an hour, and that defendant's car was being driven at 


shout the eame speed; that as they aporcached 46th street she saw 


the Hunley car in 46th street; that when she first saw the car it 


4 


248 G48 jooneva ep bleh edit tao ent re itigme Lote ould tuede 
“gen woderd odd helfadd baa UldeleS ody out od Soucud Paabewy 
— Pimdded “otht wide cad 4h “te Bhoute” sme ddd aw Fudd aE 
“$OdA Mew ode dadd pues YoLnwl out ‘to seth! xe Loew aadx eae 
frie (qbfea w ot Sime JL mie tod qotayt aay mont dest emot to omit 
gushae'tetl .oorde bas ‘Yo rednwe off goofs gakvicd ww ye tow gadd 
edd fens hae ptaohtoos oat vote tao god to tue Foy Ode Haas WYRE 
°° 89 donate ent seoxee thee Vite #hib dient “to yatayt ot ado Lqeng 
neg fuods x6 Mood omen sou bis yotawif 2a fads baa \gathtiee 
sone batt gon dives sud vests ma Te) Be ties Ste tadd M 
tie Hoidw ,nesthba Bae timc ted n cee bodan yok ii aad 
suns eee doa bh bon hetbtal ton ¢aw ade bcd eyes ade” de dey 
s'ysrund jadd ytorteloeg syae ade lbevktak tea neds wat” * chod 
126% odd iedveed tek) pPbexdu YAS OFNT He gaet Lhe? Meats eaw 
Elidadoty sey sted? eg hte t® to enoradiws tene ot doe ues ake ’ 
edt Nt ue saw two atd to deaq’ dnort as Fane” toot vt 6a 
debtw soot evit duode effeted & eae tay tom beth jp yeeym ones 
* gs we? yetnwt to Boot ea pats thn hiove 8¢ tens Kentid ost! saat 
“'" 26% eoaqe Myvom dom sew ote?’ dad} { téblie ond $ret Bika | 
ane $i avn veo “tod Bae ‘Oeue fy aséwied weay oF oiidendtia ‘itt ie 
 dnebtoow off x rte wen gettin : 
bit Wkw Oe Suid tubhne WH tot bed tI oeed YotEa smelt | : 
 sebgit lu a thy eftdevotwe anak gaibie saw ola’ ‘tous ytaentoos 
oie tad? ytene ort at otedwemoe’ GePag xt Yo oate” aud Geo waw eae 
-Maok s'Fmmbuotoh of batted Sondre Any itll bo fox0n' gatbir een 
~o 90t feode tas fawblobs ot Ab beviovilt eao Rec dee pave 
diya Kovooorgon youd wa Jald jira Bawls bode med FeoY eet 
8 thoda movin giled aaw gatity abw ete Holsw af Sed Oxy! Poors 
da povich gated saw ‘tay oY sebine rob’ Palle bina ¶Won ha eo Thin as 08 
wan oie feerPs 90D besoworcqn yer aa text) phowye nme OHt Hoda 


eh a0 oad wae tek asta sede sad —* Pty Pet | 
Pah a eS Br PERS ll Ce Pater aint — 


























was about a length or a length and a half of the car back of the 
east line of Michigan avenue, - about fifteen feet; that it vas 
going at about the same speed as defendant's car; that when it 
proceeded inte Hichigan avenue, defendant's car was almost up to 
46th street; that the Nunley car was driven almost the full length 
of the car past the east line of Michigan and then stopped; that 
defendant turned to the right ond her front wheel hit the rear 
wheel of the other car. ‘his witness saye that she did net knew 
defendant or any of the parties iz the other car before the acci- 
dent. She says that defendant's car was just a little way from 
the Nunley car when it stovped in Michigan svenue; that defendant 
Was almost up to it and then turned, about four or five feet, when 
she came to a stop. The witness says that she waited to see if 
anyone wae hurt; that ur. Nugent gave irs, Langdon his name and 
then drove on north behind ire. Langdon. Ghe is positive that the 
ear which collided with defendant's car wae standing almost in the 
center of the street. 

The witness who appears to have been impartial, seems to 
us to cive the more reasonable narration as to the manner in which 
this secident occurred, The record fails to shew any reason why 
defendant should have turned her car te the east on 46th street 
in the manner plaintiff's witnesses describe. Defendant Lived 
north, was going north, and there was no reason so far as the 
evidence discloses why defendant should have turned cast into 
46th street, and we think it quite inprobable that she did ao, 

It is not denied that the — te the Kunley car was at the 
rear part of it, and thie fact is quite consistent with the 
narration defendant gives of the accident. Ye held that the 
verdict of the jusy is therefore against the manifest weight of 
the evidence, and the judgment must be reversed for that reason. 


We think, too, tie court erred in sustaining objections 


* 


Sid to dost x#e oof Yo Theil # baa MOgnel » te Wigtel s tweda sew 
uae 92 Gadd pect aoseTET tuade + joucova hogtied Ye énkl dane 

tt act tad? ; tne ot taehnoteh os hesee sume edt dnote ta gato 
ot eh deomis ant tas at tnmhae teh ,ewaova mighdoki ofa —E 
Mdgaek List odd seomta tevinh tae tao yotawd ods todd ee APBS - 
“ted? thoqqote mbct bas abydlbte Yo oaks tone ext Peng tao ead RO 
nox add oid Igede taeTl wed baw sags e489 Oo Boots? Jasdnn'tob 
woud don bib ore 228? eyce weoativ elAT \. tas tedgo edt * fisocte 
“atooi 6A) ‘wroted aad todo oat G2 aeltahg O09 26 Yaw to samba TOR 
most yaw ofitil 2 tent sbW sae af tadsae' teh dadt eyew —R 
sawdttstob tatt-yeumove megtMeke wt hogaoda ek Anite 208 qn ante ont 
oe tiene San an Ph 
42 eee of bediaw sae Sod wyae neeeele ea leeds @ of aio SH6 

a Yoga eit duct ; Pew mew Shoe 
ott tect evidiecg ot om8 .totgned Lait Sabited’ ditem ne avon ree 
odd at teemla weebines ast iso a tisbreteh thin bebetted “ie befor ing 
ee — 

os tasee .tnitxoqat aed evar of exanqua ew, weaedhe oat a 
doistw al touans of of of toltertal e1dandansw etow ORY ovte OF He 
"ester wentes Yor vote of aria broset of?  jherreand Yon bhone’ whe 
feetse dad ao ghar odd of too tom hetent ovad .Luerfe yy 
hovhl tuane'ted lexttoesb soeteativ &'YtivntaLy dhmkam edt oh 
pide ab ta’t of aoeeet oo Baw oven? bao tom antog ase | Keren 
 gdot ten heirmud eved Divers Grobie'teh yitw eototialh seaen tes 
lee BEB ene daAs eideCorgal eeteg FP dated ow bow’ 
acd te aww deo yo Law otf? of sgeamt Sad toch bobieb fom ef FT 
eid Ksiw tostelenes oftup at goat whit bow (oF te tone aaee 
ew} Jam tho oF inebloon sf? Ye eevtg tambad tes woltertha 
“pe ttytow fae taka ony temlege #rotored? wi qeet sk? Xo sobbxey 
“Smosaer Sects cot bowtevet od sabe shoaghut ox Hin jbomebive ald 
‘anottostdo gaintasace a Ror few0e Oud: OOF MARAE OM ee 











bite oust ats nobgndt B18 ersy 











7 


to questions asked by the attorney for defendant for the purpose 

of disclosing the speed at which the Runley car was being driven 

at the time it approached Michigan avenue. The court several times 
sustained objections to such questions, holding that this fact was 
not material, It Kad an important bearing upon the reasonableness 
of the story as told by the respective parties, and the objection 
should not have been suatained, 

There are other alleged errors which it will be unnecessary 
to discuss. Vor these we have indicated, the judgment must be 
reversed and the cause remanded for another trial. 

REVERSED AND HBMANDED. 


MeSurely, °. J., and G'Gonnor, J-, coneur. 






smogxny eft tat sanhae lob tot yonrette | odd “yd Hotes | 
Sovith yuled saw is0 yetowl watt —û——“ 









* 


— ——— — ais rng — wvliowee or nite 8 ea erate wits J. 


w⸗e orn tee — — 
famed tat 











ch 


—— ey 























temcge “bb oa 4 i ‘ed Goel ® Sala — a ah 
Gaal 
ee * J ay aha ota neta he rs 
4 i —F fae 
Sy ak — * ty + 
On om! * ‘i 
— ——— mn 
ade da! we ten Oe 
ee Pt gr RAN ae Ay uth 
— pts VF on h” * 
Nae Wee Ee at ao aie yk ata twas eh e ie * snail 
* Od 4 a per Waa" 
ie OTS Paes — 





aa Ree tie MMR: y sen ties 





eye aS 
ine ‘ 5 wih bathe i 





— * 
24 


36318 


JOHN &. MADDEN and JAKES 4. MADD ;(. 
Bxecutors, etc., 


4 
Appellees, ⸗ 
a. * 





OF COOK COURTY, 


270 1.4.61 


KR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVSARD THS OPISICK OF THE COURT. 


ERS, P. P. FLATRATY, 
Appellant, 


Plaintiffs, executors of the estate of John 4“. Madden, 
gued in aseumpeit, in their amended declaration declaring upon 
a promissory note of defendant, 5rs. e, P. Plaherty, for the sum 
of $1500, made February 21, 1929, due Sovember 1, 192%. The com- 
mon counte were attached, and there Was af affidavit of elsim with 
copy of the account sued on. 

Defendant filed a plea ef the general issue and another 
plea ef partial failure ef gonsideration. In the latter plea it 
was alleged that the note sued on wae given in payment of the 
purchase price of the interest ef plaintiffe' decedent in certain 
herees, and thet the consideration en the part of defendant and 
upon which she entered inte the gontract was the right and privi- 
lege on her part to return the horses or the surviver of them at 
any time within two years and while the eame were being used by 
defendant for racing pursones (the horses being race horses and 
purchased for that purpose); that defendant within said period 
offered to return the herses to plaintiffs but plaintiffs refused 
to accept them, causing great lose and damage in the cost and ex- 
pense of maintaining, keeping, earing Yer, feeding and transporting 
the horses in = eum greatly exceeding the amount of the note. 
There was aleo a plea of set-off, alleging an indebtedness due from 
plaintiffs to defendant for failure to accept and receive from de- 


fendant the horses for which the note was given. 


mh * \ ¢ — , * 
N . ( ¢ WRGGAR, i BAAG hove ACOA aC NOT 
—17 aS se9esiougs — 


te ‘4 ak Se * rR ba 
at i * Pe SH. SRO SR Er — — * £) BR aw J— 










ravo⸗ ‘oni wa 
i ied #009 Yo 





Ne 


8 I s" A. T 0 3 J— i sane Ome Sa Gs se 


— 
a 






.PAauOo NET YO MOTMERO MRT cans TEGHOTAM SOTTCUT su 


mebbak * ‘litte ‘te otadea otf “10° eh — 

noni ‘jnizh fesh’ aolsoudloes febsomm wiede we  thdonueas —— il 
maja oni? tot ,yszddoll .1 4 cae | Himittie teh tS otod Yadadaaeng 
-apo ott .OROL .f ‘ode vol bub ,@OL .12 yrauedet she O08L Te 











die mkele to SivebfYte a saw ered? Poe , bodbadte agave Lo 





aa wa ican we ‘ania. 
gentoms bas sdeel Lordi; ait to sate a bortt raat vith 
di wolo wedtet ont at .nolterehteacs To erwliat Lebteay 








ext ‘te ¢aemyeq ni nevty daw ao Sewe atom eit taste paar 





akadroo ab guebeosh ‘attivatet te duetstal ont Yo evita santoine 


er — — — — 


Bip avexod sont gated seared ont) él anton ie’ la aes 





boltog bine nisdiw goubas toh tut 5 (eeoqtug tet wot * 
— D—— — ‘o —EX 
oxo bite S#00 off af agaamh doe seok teoxy gniaian mend Seoon oF 
gqaitveqhanx# bia gitbowt xe? galtas patqsed jpitnlabain te eum a 
oven elt "Yo ¢nvemn ost yatheoexe yitanky we w ot — a 








mst oub enenbosdehat a» gatgelis ,Yte-tes to aote & oeke awe one, 9 





-oh mort avieowt Saxe tqeooe od ecuttat vot Sambo ted ‘os 





mvig sew eton end dokiw xe¥ sur wai ne aa 


‘ 9 " pa ; —— See iil — 





An affidavit of merits was attached wherein P. P. Flaherty, 
as the authorized agent of defendant, averred that defendant had a 
meritorious defense to the whold demand and that the note was 
given for the purchase price of the race horses Linda, Milton, 
Moore and Strike; that previous to the giving of the nete John *, 
Madden had sold te defendant a half interest in the horses for which 
she paid $6,000 eash and agreed to pay a balenee of $4,000 under 
certain terme and conditions then entered into; that during the 
period of possession of the horses for racing purooses (it appearing 
thet it was impossible to succesaluliy comply with the terme of the 
partnership arrangement), Madden and defendant entered inte a new 
arrangement whereby Madden e914 defendant hie interest in the 
horses for $3,000, giving her eredit for $1500, which wae allewed 
affiant on certain commiselona; further that it was expressly agreed 
as the consideration for the execution of the nete that if at any 
time thereafter defendant desired to return the horses or survivors, 
Aecedent would receive them in full payment of the note or of any 
balance due, and esncel the note; that in December, 1924, Linda 
died; that 4t became apvarent defendant could not eontinue under 
the agreement without entailing heavy losses; that the resalning 
horses were unable to win races; that it was impossible te keep 
up the expense of nisintaining them; that defendant's help had left 
and it was folly te intrust the horses to the hands eof others; that 
ane then offered to return the horses and waive any rebate on ace 
eount of cash paid as part of the sonsideration; that plaintiffs 
refused to keep the agreement and notified defendant they would not 
aceept the horses; that after helding the horses at an expenee and 
loss of 31300 defendant wae compelled to sell them at an additional 
less whieh greatly exceeded the amount of plaintiffs’ claim; that 
plaintiffs refuced te accept and sell the horses at public auction 
at the large breeding establishment of decedent, continued by 


Ral RS Se ee 


swstededt 6% .¢ nhevedw bociontta caw wsicom to sivas Pts a beets 
@ Bos thabae les Jadt bevreve  teerae tet Ye ‘Srege — “ ae 
aaw fon ert gadt baa baaseh sfodw edt of Same'teb 

see LLK what seated soar od) to gelrg esaiong eat Tie eve: 

(> agee son: ous Io ‘hilly ty as? of asolverq tad? ;ediee® Ane ersel 
da tite | eet — oats at Searedat tied » taeboeleb of bfLow had sebhee 
ebay G00,08 Yo osneled veo oF hewtga ‘fis dkay 089,88 lag ode 

edt gaixuh Jad? jotat betetae asdt aswitipwos dae aaxed uletues 
giieegqe #2) easoqrag guteat se? anstod ont to ao Lapereog —9 
ens Le suxht od? cizhw yLquoe Yifvtengoawe of eldtenoqms any ¢h pedt 
wes @ afat boroiae tiabae teh bas sehbed, , (deravgnerta qidecen 
ot at teareand eld saohoe toh bios sethed — —* an 












oe te 42 fads gton ome —* perinny watt * _aghsen ehlamos emt 4 
sSteviviva to esated eds gindey ¢F herlend dim bag teh / * 


Ysa To to etem af? Io sasmaq iy? al meds ovioner — en — 
shot ,O8@L ,zedegesd al ted? totog ent ſaa bee stub @ ue Lan 








_ Tabaw eunkinog foo bivos Iashasteh feo mmgga manged $2 ders 
giinianet ott tant jeeaned yao yatiiotae tverdélw treme: 

qovi of oi¢leseqmt saw 32 fact peeves aby 68 eLdame _— a7 * 

#tek hed glace gaaa aod sadt jmeds gababetates ‘te senegne odd qu 


= > PS 








tard jeresise Yo ahnesl ods oF aenxod acd gausdat ot yCto% aay ot Dae 


(70a Me Siadet Yan aview has Reatos ot wiutes of bere tte aed? eile 


_aYthgaiely gais jaolgatehtenes ost te fxg oe ‘bieg seas Yo taweo ; 


fen biver yeott sSachaetah beltises hus taemgtga att iia al 


hao eageqne ae tx noarod et yoibiod r8lte tert jaaeted od? tegnga 





Aenorstoia an ta mest (foe of keLieqaoa aaw dashae tod QOLIY Xe.) a | 
tact ymiede 'eTtiistatg to sonemm dt bobenoxe Ylteotg sede * 
noltous oliduq to soured ex? ifee ban sgooen of Apawter etthtals 








@ beunitaes ,tanheooh te taomdialidatee gathoerd: — ots te i, 


4 


plaintiffs, where frequent salee were held; that defendant's claim 
exceeded the claim of plaintiffs by $500. 

There were replications to the effect that decedent dia 
not agree to receive the horses or survivors of thes, as allaged, 
and that defendant did mot coffer te return the horses and plain- 
tiffs 41d not refuse to accept them; that the consideration had 
not failed. 

The cause was tried by a jury. The note was offered in 
evidence, Defendant produced as a witnese in her behalf her 
husband, ?. F. Flaherty, and offered to prove by him the facts 
comatituting the defense as set up in her pleas. Plaintiffs eb- 
jected on the ground that the witness waa incompetent under sec- 
tien 2 of the Evidence act (dmith-urd's 111, sev. State., 1931, 
chap. 51, see. 2, p. 1473.) the objection was sustained, and at 
the close of the case plaintiffs moved that the cet-off of defendant 
be diesissed; that the court exclude from the jury all the evidence 
offered and received on the part of defendant and instruct the jury 
te return a werdict for plaintiffs. The motion was allowed, a 
verdict was returned for plaintiffs in the sum of $1500, and the 
court after overruling the sotions of defendant for a new trial 
ang in arrest of judgaent, entered judgment for that amount on the 
verdict. 

Defendant has appealed and argues as error the exclusion 
of the evidence of her husband as incompetent under the statute. 
That is the controlling question in the ease. 

At common law the parties to a suit were incompetent as 
witnesses, and the husband and wife were not competent witnesses 
for or against each other in suite between them an4 other parties. 
Their compet sney depends ventirely upon the etatute. In so far as 


the statute provides enmly and no further are they competent. By 


section 1 of the Evidence act in this State it is provided that 


\ 


wabaio #'inabasteb tends {bled stew eoiae teaxport eugde 
008k Yo BMLIsalale to akeke: anid —— 

hit takes oh gout ten'tite odd oF anoisaod igor wns prs 6g 0 oe 
begetie ga, ead? to ssovivtiua to aseted eld oviooet ef eolne ton 
«niet bac aowted ad? asweed ad sveTto fom Alb taebae'tel adh fale 
os het Goktensbhemos estt test: jaest aqmnee ot seston tom bthw Eee 
. ebekket 2on 
mS bouotto saw often act : tial @ ud deli) aw sana att eeu” 
rat ‘tLaded aest at eenativ « se heawbomy dnaheetet  eonmbive 
aton't esd mis yd ovet@ of bets Tho, hem. ., aus ci a bmeteant 

ado eTLialalt .enely tod a2 cy son. vane eh od gadtudstanoe 
~o0a TObAH JansogucoUs Raw eooatty. ait fomt Dewy eine bee 
pAb OL, - Rate .vOK WALL a relented) tae som bhyl wat To apt Bo 
. de bie ,bealateva gas co ootde: ath,» Ress oe fe 200 Kt et 
taahes heb to To-den eg said bovem etiigatate eage ode Bo: seete: ost 
onebiye oft ite vant edt aes shuiene suuae osit dent, aboas Lan 2h. od 
vaut eet sountmed bine: jopbieioh Te diag et uo tavleos, hae boweThe 
a \bewolin saw colton edt. .eTtdutele xod.dothrey, amutexet 

ois Bam ,OOOLE Io sue oid at @Thivalat@ tot heamdes! ear solhaey 
— —— — wor # Tol Foshusleb ko eaolsem ety aahiuereve edhe, dre 33 
ont no favomn face col dommybut Soustae: tae myhut Xo: deen wh san 
ee | osh seul janerhe pallenanesepeas he omni oo adedineny ! 
Molauloxs ad? 18179 sa sougee son tedeeainnne Sambee Ww) der 
.otetesa eof unbay teetogmeons aa btadavd xed, Lo sonphive melt "to 
ono ould mi nolieoup pati Lentace edd mh: deat 

. te saetequoonl avew Shes a oF aoliteg ons val neaMeD PA ooo tay 
Abesensly Jnoseques tom sxow Olin ba» bandsud poh hee .seumenthe 
- eordmag casio. ban most avewted pine, mAs testo sat gmt enseee | 

te. tO on al ,edwiade edd, 0M: edonts cao) vgn oanoo ThOE 

dadd bobivere ef dt etete eint ab fom conobsv® et Qorkantiosn — 

















ho person shall be disqualified as a witness in any civil aetion, 
suit or procetding, #xeept as thereinafter atated, by reason of 
hia interest in the event thereof, ag » party or otherwise, or by 
reason of his gonviction of any crime, but that such interest or 
convietion may be shown for the purpose of affecting the credibility 
of such witness. Section 2 of the act provides in substance that 
no party to any civil action, suit or preceeding, or person di- 
rectly interested in the event thereof, shall be allowed to tea- 
tify therein of hie own motion, or in his own behalf, by virtue 
ef section 1, when any adverse party sues or defends as the 
trustee or conservator ef any idiet, habitual drunkard, lunatic 
or distracted perscn, or as the executor, administrator, heir, 
Legatee or devisee of any deceased person, or as guardian or 
trustee of any such heir, legatee or devisees, uniess when called 
ae a witnese by such adverse party so suing or defending, and 
@leo except in five different canes mentioned, mo ene of which is 
material here. Section 5 of the same dct provides that ne husband 
or wife e#hall by virtue of seetion 1 be rendered competent to 
testify for or against each other as to any transaction er conver- 
sation occurring during the marriage, vhether called as a vitnesa 
during the existence of the marringe, or after its dissolution, 
except in cases where the wife weuld, if unmarried, be plaintiff 
or defendant, or whore the cause ef action grows out of tne ne- 
giect of the husband to previde the wife with suitable support, 
exeept in cases here the litigation shall be concerning the 
separate property of the wife and suite for divorce, ete, 

it is sentended in benalf of defendant that by reason of 
these provisions of section & the husband was competent to tes- 
tify in toie suit in faver of his wife because the litigation 


concerns her separate property; and a number of cases such as 


Gasvens v. Heustis, 201 111. 208; Booker v. Booker, 208 111. 929, 


’ 


defies Stviy Yin it sesnety @'tn ‘Boltt Gompate ea ceade ddeeeg ein 
te seaaot ut ,betede tePtanlotet® va Sqnoxe |, galboonwte x6 show 
vxe —2 A 2 we loereds trisve eat wh fawtedal ahd 
£0 idee duts deve fan? dod pechto Yoe to doltelvese ala to noeavy 
USLLEGeseste seg gaNeeTts Yo stoqtaig ots rst wirede ee you aoltelvaen 
fad? sometedun al aohivoxe ton ade ToS noldos@ yraamsie some te 
«2h asateqd 10° ,patbeeoote ro tlue ,welton fivle yma — — 
weed G2 Bowolls 6¢ flac roetsdt Iaers wat’ ‘ak badeor | 
eugtty yd , Tleded fwe eid ch to (asttom ave wid te ale 
edt ef afar teh 46 enue yPtag datévhn Gad Rode, tot ‘ “te 
sitanul ,Sxedauth tavdided , tote ynw ‘te tedavreened * staat 
tied \totatsatnins (totveass ont se 20 nee -_ fe 
to makftesy ae to ,adeteg beeeves hve I 
Selies sede seo tay ,eeeivsh TO ebtenel , eta’ ver on ‘vo —— 
—— eRe 
“eh dotae Yo she oft btnelinia aeess andre Try oFtt” ad rypdne “ats 
‘Paedetad of tek} eebtvetg go euna eae te @ merdeee: vere iabeoten 
ot Saeteqneo betehiot 6d I nolsege Yo sabuiy yt Lisca gtiw ve 
~teviied to Sobisoenst? yas oF oh tedde dpae dembege co xeT ytheeed - 
aneirivy & #8 beLien toils one Sgn litise off gikewh Qaivrvese agites 
 (mokdufoenkh wai tngte «e jogettrém edt te aonete hee one gabead 
Thismiels od ,belriemny TE ,bivow s'tlw est? exede ones afl egenxs 
“een end ‘to gue ewory molten to sauna vat ober 40 (Tabhaeted to. 
droqqua oltiet ioe dirtw eth edt ehivete OF bandamt Oar Ye “Fb0ry 
eft gndszecaeo of Ikadn moigaghe tt of? ene esas al dedons 
“ate ,sotovth cot adlve haw sthw one Ye Yeeeeodl — **— 
te apvaet ‘i Sart} daebite'tos ‘te faved wt bobaetues on x a 
east of duefequos sew Sueded ott @ nottoos ty emote ives’ setelt 
* gotsapterd ott eeumoed atiw eff te tovet 2 ghve wtee na ynte 
ee coun senso Yo veda w bane ,Yseeqory etenwyse «cot woes 
.O8e . LEE B08 \xexoot .v towpo@ 808 .22T £08 eteene -_ 

























and Koatlan v. Pavelka, 261 [11. App. V1, are cited, Those cases 
state a rule which is applicable in a certain clags of cases but 
are not, as we hold, applicable where, as here, the suit is of 
that class from snd defendants are exeluded as witnesses by the 
exceptions naned in section 2. In other words, the suit here 
being by the executors of an estate, beth husbend and wife were 
disqualified. The question has been passed on in numercue eases 


end ig ee well settied ae to make a lengthy discussion unnecessary. 


In Treleaven vy, Dixon, 119 Ill. 844, the Supreme court, expressly 
everruling « former decision to the contrary, (Marghall vy. Peok, 
@1 Ill. 187) stated: 
"se® other parties can not teetify in any eivil action, suit or 
proceeding, of their own motion or in tueir own behwlf, when any 
advyeree party sues or defends as the executor of a deceased per- 
#0n, and therefore hustand and wife can net testify for or against 
each other in theese instances, * 
Other cases te the same effect are Pyle v. Gusteatt, 92 Ill. 209; 
Bann vy, Forein, 166 lil. 446; Heints y. Dennis, 216 ill. 487; 
Lingle vy. Bulfer, 322 111. 606; Gifrert v. MeGuern, $1 I12. App. 
387; Hanilton v. Chaffge, 159 I11. App. 54; Platt v, ¥illieams, 175 
Til. App. 1. 

in conformity with these rulings we hold that the court 
did not err in excluding the evidence offered, and there being 
mo evidence tending te sustain the defense set up in the pleas, 
the court properly instructed a verdict for plaintiffs. ‘The 
jucdgeent is therefore affirmed, 


AFF IRWED, 


#eSurely, >. J., and O'Conner, J., coneur. 


20880 enol — etn — ee Lon. 





fe etvt © otate 
5 to at thwe oad — 34 eter ont tage . abled a #8 ,2ac ata 
* vd peneoaste ae bebuloxe St stanhas We P\ go lie ROT meato tact, 
azad tien asd wabten sale al 5 a9 Stege af bomen anoltveose 
“exe atiw baws bue deat a2 od 938) 20, ts te atetwooxp oad ud gated 


we oh baw, 
tod asses to nease skate a at oidantiqga ot os nN 








sense sailed a2 ao honaeq need ead aokinenp ant holt iaupetie, 
eta none sa aolaawonth ystigned ® odaw ot aa holites Mor 9 oe, * baa, 
ylenougxe — — 8 ⸗ↄe ro 44 ett a ‘i 
dog LiesiezeX) .xarxtaoe ond ot noletoo’ — * J 


<0 thue aotton Lyte, 833.4 nai ak 

veto, nepal , tLasipd oie conde: oy =, Bae 

-teq heoacosh 6 to — p 
—— te ret ¢iieees ton mee ‘na ‘fhe 


) teh 4 Ne. * eee 
* epgantaat — ant 
















| J Ss a J 6 — 8h eb 
“ewe ade taste bios ow P agntive —* atte Mtdmotaog at — 
gated ores bow sbome rte sorebhye ont gathuloxe ab tte dem bab. 


— aso La ons at Ca, tes oaae ted one Ataaua a⸗ yalbaes —B——— 
ont ert iatale x0? tolbxey @ betouTinat vireqote. J mnt, 


_ shamed te wigteredd | * * 
Chee py bbe he Pe We GRY Ee, — oie 


eit cine 8 — ban? Oe soa 


RS ex is: 











ai : < Poe 
“tay eed J * wate? 
ee J —— —X 
— awh RE —— Keni 








36379 — — 


J. RAND, Doing Business az 
RANDCKAPT CLOTHES, 


ipperiege” 


vs. 


A. STARSIAK, 





Appellant, , 
270 1.4. 618° 


WR, JUSTICE MATCHSTT DELIVSRED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff in an action on contrast filed « statement of 
cleim alleging items due from defendant on account and accruing 
from August 7, 1931, to Deceuber of the same year, for men's 
Clothing seld and delivered to defendant at hie speeial inatance 
and request to the tetal sacunt of $1712.51, om whieh a eredit by 
check dated January 26, 19532, for $206 was eliowed, leaving a 
belanee in the sum of $1512.51. 

Defendant filed an affidavit of merits in whieh he averred 
that at the time of purchasing the merchandise plaintiff did “ex- 
pressly warrant and agree that the said merchandise shall(be) fit 
for the purvosesfor which it was scl4d, namely, that 1% would be 
fit for mereantile and marketable use; and the plaintiff did then 
end there at the various times aforesaid expressly agree with this 
affient that the said goode and merchandise, if and when it should 
preve te be unfit fer the use ae aforessid that this affiant shall 
return the same and reeeive eredit therefor;" that the merchandise 
when delivered to him were misfite; that the alleged suits were 
not matched with each other snd that each suit contained pieces 
which were not matched with themselves in coler and size; further, 
that en February 18, 1932, in compliance with the exprese warranties 
and agreements aforesaid and upon discevering the breach, defend- 


ant returned the merchandise totalling at invoice price the sum 


of $1500, being the same merchandise fer which plaintirr sought 


RF Stone sale ae er ee pina oar 68 5 


— jae — 


‘Ay 
* 


erixaarton aaeraxs vane Sequin ah x at 84 reawrde aden 





bap ee — 
ae ta urarao aur maser —2— sorte, — 
“Ye tneastete a betlt tewwtios a0 — sn i. runnin the : 
“ gniwayen hie gowevoe no sasha te aot and! HnOgL gatghtehitaze — 
etaom Tot seme oman ond ‘te tedeooed od MORE —1 


boutons sokenae bid te: sihbab eh eb borers fab hin go — tntoto 






















biped bs ied J ah 
| 


a —— "bowel ie naw ood “nate Rese ae naw hes ———— 

<6 84066 Yo: sou one isk wma 

horror oi cobs gk adness To dtwenlts a hokT ddaaw bes. 
ake" ery the da 
oe nd) — —— bloe 949 tama sevpe fad, Somrtew ythbes 
od binow o£ gad? .ysomem pion saw gt dobsin sa tooebusity: ad 10" 
iets pte Trhtadety «dd how pee pties eben Soe — rt J— rs a 

3 akile tie Serge: _ineetionce blasetoty annie avobsa on ‘yh 
isons $2 snow Bae TR wit bhindtbed Bae vhooy bine — pra 
tie tutte ebay veut phawot ote at wh ot cot SEtae ae 08 eve * 

— — — astt Suet note dt Shente detoven bas aan 1 ia iter 
s19F at buw teyette add aasé jad ktete anew mba of > roy Etab x9) ' : 
eeoety healetuteo sum sine ta baw vedio a: atte. bees 9 ? J ⸗ 4 


a a Hee +e — uf f A 


<toderet peute haw 19.608 ab anrioeianue ei be — son onow dod 


Se. 





bate tos loneas ots pokrevenesh aoe baw Bhesorots | e aus·aot 
‘aoe ‘ost sels sotaval $4 aaiiiatot saz habsiovan oa he 


to recover, and that defendant war therefore entitled to a credit 
for the difference between the amount of the merchandise returned 
te plaintiff and the ameunt of plaintiff's claim, 

There was a trial by the court which found against de- 
fendant for the sum of $1512.51. After motions by defendant fer 
a new trial and in arrest had been overruled judgment was entered 
on the verdict. 

It is urged that the eceurt erred in refusing a metion to 
find for 4efendant; that plaintiff failed te maintain the burden 
of proof; that the finding wae contrary to the law and the mani- 
fest weight of the evidences; that eredit should have been given 
for the merchandise returned to the value of 81500, and that the 
judgment if any, should have been for the sum of $15.12. 

At the beginning of the trial plaintiff insisted that 
Decause the facts averred in the statement of claim were not 
specifically denied in the affidavit of merits the burden of proof 
was cast on defendant to preve his alleged defense. Defendant in- 
sisted on the contrary that plaintiff sheuld firet "prove* his 
*eount." ‘the court held with plaintiff, and this is the first 
alleged error assigned and argued. 

Defendant cites Woodlawn 4 





258 111. App. 68, where a defendant to a judgment entered by 
confession was upon hie instance permitted by the court to pre- 
gent his defense first. The Appellate court held this was not 
the correct practice. The court, however, on the authority of 
Morris vy. Taylor, 199 Ill. App. 54%, held further that the rights 
of the litiganta had not been tiereby prejudiced. 

While in this case we think the eccurt might well have 
required, in the first instance, forwal proof of a computation of 
the amount due, we are not dissesed te Aold that any error of 


precedure in this regard was prejudicial. The affidavit of. 


fiero 2 of belthine exe'tored? vaw faabartod Jott ban \Yovanes of 


— 


hour uses entbaaigram sdt to Inwoes att nsswied sonexe Yt Eh edt tot 
isin a Tiktatele Yo trweme ex? bap rier bed 


«ah vanlage bawet #9 bite 2 ee rit vw igiit a Baw ereutt es 


292: sian igre: ‘teh ye ilo Ri pat: —— £2 .24808 Ye suo ostt <0 — 
—— —2 — — — fee J San deerss ab hows tant wen 7) 

—— a0 
oe oo 38 08 £ uation ai bevte tw00 aah tari? singin hee Boats 


— team ext aa wal add of wiortaes “daw ganda * jaa materia . 


——— — 


as 







aoviy aned ved Siuorle Jibei ded? ieotiab ive ‘wat * auu⸗ 
—* tats baw 008 £9 Yo suler ade ‘of bemtudor soldnsnoxon odd “te 
: Cree — wk 











“ua Serora® dasth ‘bio “ba uhede’ Page ee 
taut? eid ab sid? baw iratata dew pte icine’ ae : 
| bongs bas —— rome ee 






is hexet ne — od * otet 

| 0% of —2 add yd bedtinnog constant eid meq Baw ino si 
m fon anw eit b how —X siativqua ‘out toned ‘ey abt J 
te e brositue ode a0 teyeved ttu98 oat “eo itearg soointe aig 


om hele 


J ot sas coda bind 86a soa hat” eek”, 
ye -bosibutore yard aed fon bast ‘abangieit — 


J—— 
“eval Liow Sei ie s1woe ond aat i an eae “ali oh othe 


ro — a te Toor Lauro ssonatant tenth efi ab, Lape 
* ——— * 


te ‘TeTK une ‘feds biLon oa —— ton ore ow weet owen 
ay 
“Yo stvab itis ont falotbulerg oa fuaget eae at 














—— 


—— 


Seg ie A 
— — ca 4 hy * * ya 
Ve * 
eae — 
wild $a 
¢ ; 


See 


merite did net specifically or by imeliecation deny the facts 
averred in the statement of claim. ‘Jee section A, rule 15 of 


the Municipal court, of whieh we take judicial notice, dee also 
lgacham v. Lobdell, 198 111. App. 360; Board of Education vy, 


Ghicago Bonding & Surety Co., 218 111. App., 20; Grand Srunk 
Weatern Ry. Co. v, Hales & Uunter Co., #35 £11. App. 100. 


in the evidence offered by defendant there was a suggese 
tion that some of the gecds had been sold by sample, and it ie 
suggested that the goods delivered were net in design and quality 
equal te the sample, Defendant cites section 16 of the Sales act. 
(SmitheHurd's I11. Rev, Statutes, 1951, chap. 1214, eee. 16.) 
This supposed defense was evidently an afterthought. It was not 
set up in the affidavit ef merits, and the evidence upon the 
point is not sufficient te establish the defense, ewen if it had 
been pleaded. 

it is next contended that there was an implied warranty 
that the goods were. suitable for a special purpese. Here again 
mo such defense is set up is: the affidavit of merits, ner is there 
proof in the recerd upon which such defense might be sustained. 

it is further argued that where goods reesived prove to be 
defective and the seller informa the buyer that he should try to 
#@1l the same, and if unable to do se, te return it, the buyer 
has the right to return the goede te the selier. House v, Beak, 
341 Ill. 290, and Sprin Sieyden Kirksey Woolen Milis, 106 
Tll. App. 579, are cited. House vy. Beak, hovever, involved a 


case in which a contract of sale, or return, by a whelesaler to 





a retailer was construed, and the evidence showed goods were simply 
placed on consignment. That was not the situstion here. On the 
contrary the gocde were sold and delivered, thus passing the title 


at once to the vendee, 





i§ Mille ease decided 


eee eee wa ee |= we 





en PO ae ns eet 





afoot ond qe motdestiont ud te —E— fen ny bd 
‘gis a’ Winx KX Roldsen ‘wet Jadato Ye daometade ont ni bevaes 
ee ia ame sotto — tial ow —— * — Anatole te 
ib 9* i iit BR 60 gheeue A ws 
















& fan e te ee 


— dav ten? 2asbas teh oo berte to sormbive oat al 


et — siqaaa yd titok aged ‘best atoog end’ * omer * aot⸗ 
——— ‘pase ayteed af fon wee derorkion ahooe ous tna bos ee — 
add Yo Of noltyee aaito tanhao red bot be 
Cad see Steet saan . Ot — —* std hon 
toe wae #Y idyuadeeedte oe ‘Ekenmbive asv “pane teh — 531* 7 e 
ec equ aokebive edt bas et een ‘eo ‘Hesbite out ik fai ton 
i ——— end dahesason el tae sien He ab aor 









RRR EE 





at ae 








Ban actow bolignd ae aew oases fant —— — — ye Lage 
“ wiage oxe% estoruq Edbeaqe & et ahead tun 9289 ints iis 





omit ‘al 40% jetiten t6 ‘Piven ita oat ae ee ton ak ‘onne tab poy oe 
 bediageve wd soybean sbas lat sau’ Kohala — — os — 

ad of evorg hovieoes abeen — dana. baste ‘yedduue al ——— 
9d ead btuowe oa Fant te bit “aot ‘waneta tise — evizooteh 
xeyud eae ,3t nrudet of 08 ‘oh 04 Ohdaay 2 ban * june oa tion 
ane .v eouot wablise ‘pila 08 — — of sy ge “ptt bad 
“Rod pe bitit ae 2x3 — agirat ar 
"g bevtoval cToverod dught 1+ says — a — want 
"35 ‘gedeoaloaw & ve —F * a sss te toardabo “A dente at Sean 









eionte etew ehieog hawoda doamilve end bas beurteace ‘eee “di thiliet’s 8 


exit ‘a0 (ted aéladudle ons Jom eaw 2akT indany tence a0 boosie 
8 — — east — — Baa nee stew whoop xt Guerdnde 
— ——— — 

— ———— ————— ' 








— ‘pase 


that where goods had been sold by sample, 1t was a condition pre- 
cedent that the goods when delivered should eorrespond in kind, 
eharacter and quality to the same by which the eale war made. 
There is ne doubt that is the general rule of lav, but no such 
defense in this case is either set up in the affidavit of merits 
er proved by the evidence, 

Defendant finally contends (and this is the eoentrolling 
question in the ease) that the judgment is against the mantfeat 
weight of the evidenee, amd that it te the duty ef thie court to 
set aside such judgment for that reaeen, That law is unquestioned. 
In this case the evidence shows that the eales were made on the 
dates alleged in the statement of claim and that the goods were 
delivered at about these times. The alleged defects in the goods 
Would have been apparent upon inapection. The goods were delivered 
for return Febraary 17, 1932, There is uncentradicted evidence to 
the affect that after the bills for these goods were rendered, de- 
fendant made a payment of $200 on the account and oromised he 
weuld later send a cheek for the balance. The trial Judge sew the 
witnesses and hed a much better opportunity than we te weigh their 
testisony, He expressed the opinion thai the attempt to return 
the goede wae made because of a fall in the market prices for 
such merchandise. We think his inforence was justified under 
@ll the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed, 

APY IREED, 


KeSurely, P. J., and O'Conner, J,, coneur, 


P 


-<orq meitibaos a saw ¢2 ,ofqwee yt Bow sead had aboog etesiw ted? 
nid nk bneqnernos blucds Retort ion apdw whooy aad ted? Sankee., 
eham aaw olen ord Sakae yd omen ohood Uthlenp hae retemtatto 
ewan 8 tod joel ‘to elwt fexeneg od? ad tod? dfaoh am el exed?: 
from Toodtvabitite edt mt qi deo toteto ab ones ete al oanatod: 
—— secophive sit yd hevetg 
gakiionties off «t #kAt tan) shwetaen (tient? ttahae ted bi eat 
gnehines ec? demiogs «2 foeaabut edt. tadd (eeae end at thie 
os S¢ue0 sid? Yo wher. odd a2 92. dang bee goantive ast te, fdatew. i 

| heeplineupor ah wed tact ,ayesns tadd tet ¢cempheh done. oben 208, ‘ 
odd a9 ehest ener aofen of2 dans ewote opaeh ive, ot onay ebay at be 
okey Ghoeg odd Jec? fan wiate 46 dovemsets, emt al begolie. 94 ab 
Hheey off ni etosteh begeiie anf .aenks eneat suede ta box ” bite a 
Heueviioh otew whoog om? .tedvorqnat asx demtager need ovad b teow 
td Bonshive betybhoveomeny et otpa® OCC ,0L cenwdet meter, tod 
«9h ,hocebier oer Ohows eos “ot offld ef? tod te tent dente od 7 j 
at hewkaony Sao tuvenee ent so 00% Yo dasegng @ cham fanbaet —_ 

end wee ought Lele ont .eemnded edt yo? ainede @ baer. tegek binow i: 
eked? syiow of ow mal yiiaetioene wetted doom a had bru sonnond tw. | | 
aauden of Squvdte ont daclt aatcdyo ott heasotwss of .xnemtdaety 
 -xeh aegitg detaa ont at Liat a Ye senaped akan aaw aboog oat : 
“kph hoLteut aw somenoint okt mts 8 Joathaasioxem dome 
shown Tin @2 Soonytot ond be od saad asd tha 
TAL TA, Pho MA ae ed aia hele bak : 
















RUMEN eR OM SUR ae MMR UMS RR Ae mts «4 om a tok : 
ERD. g.0%, a AOR A RO a, os SEE 
Re Ea ae eo, 





ae ese os — 
ios ° i ey ‘ ’ PPR. Shes 3 eS « SRR : £¥ — ae on Oe * 
ae Bee RRR) RRA Ree se ae ae ¥ tet tie 
sees Ne: ae ae ne” J— 
— 
hin ly ARO et tes 
* —* 





THE PROPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, . 3” * 
Defendant in Error, com ff fi 
4) #RROR TO Cytwryal. court 


# 


v3, —* rns vy 1 
“ dA of @box couwry, 
HERMAN J, GOLDRERG, ⸗ 
Plaintiff in Error. : 


270 1.4. 619' 


MK, JUSTICR MATCHETT ORLIVERED THE OPINIGH OF THE COURT, 


Merman J, Geldberg with others was indicted for conspirag 
to defraud Gook County. Gee Cahill 's Lil. Kev. Stats. 1931, eshap. 
33, par. 117, seo. 1. The indictment wae in three counts, The 
first charged s conepiracy te defeat ond defraud ty changing and 
altering booke kept in the offiee of the Board of Asseseores and 
the Board of Keview; the second, a conepiracy "te alter, falsify, 
avoid and deface said books, reeord and docwaente contrary to the 
statute,* ete.; the third, a conspiracy to bribe certain enployeee 
on matters pending before the Boards, 

Defendant was arraigned and a plea of not guilty was en- 
tered. He waived trial by jury, the cause was submitted to the 
court, hich June %), 1931, emtered a finding thet defendant was 
guilty in manner and form ae charged in the indietment, and ene 
tered judgment as follows: 

"Therefore, it 1s considered, ordered and adjudged by the 
Court that the said Defendant, Herman J. Goldberg, is guiity of 
the said crime of Conspiracy in manner and form ae charged in the 
indictment in this cause, om the said Finding of Guilty, end that 
he be and ia hereby sentenced to confinement in the Common Jail of 
Cock County for @ Grime of Conepiracy in manner and form as 
charged in the indictment whereof he stands convicted and adjudged 
guilty for the term of three (3) months from and efter the delivery 
of the body of said Defendant, Herman J, Goldberg, to the Jailer of 
enid County, and that the eaid Defendant, Herman J, Geldbverg, be 
taken from the bar of the Court to the Common Jail ef Cook County, 
from whence he came, and the Jailer of said Younty is hereby re- 
oe and semmanded to take the body of said Defendant Kerman J, 

ldberg, and confine him in seid Jail, in safe and secure custody, 
and for end during the term of three (3) months. * 
in addition it was further ordered by the court that defendant 


should pay a fine of 91000; that in default of payment of the fine 


¥ 





A & au YO BEATS ane 0 aruen aur 
— al tanben tod 
BAUGo * oF 0 — — 
— 


, _ 
ee — 


, 2809 ENT To HOLSTto BHP GuneVLiwe ‘TriiraM oe rert mee 


parinease es: betolbsi ace etsdte ushw aredbieo t — —— 
ase fees retet® wok £15 a! R agi awed — — 
oat wanes oats ah Bow Snenteibat ot of 088 La rah — 
"baw yatgacss yt —E hae dastek of qoutiga 
_ Sas wieansesa ne bisa odd Yo 90/%I0 ont ak dqox axeed ant : 
et iste’ tothe of ysertdqenee © ,bacsee (84d, pwobyeh, te tee edt 
eal? of Ytwtiave atawauegh Late — —J——— bas nen ee 
ssoyeLeare aasise adind of youn bgasion a bees oa eee." 
| abmees eds groled gathseg ates 
+e aev yiiug fan to — —A—— — Oe ‘ | 
| wats od hegtiwisge enw seuac sets «erat xe iebad — — se 
_ sew saebap tes stee2 gather? 4 bats 180 sleet — eat sobte a? oe 
-Bo bas .tapmtathat edd al hagrede’ oe stot bma semen af, —5 
38 —————— ieee denon 
% 


begtadto ea * bie eri 
















» 





ed — ted fb bas id 
vUfmwed dood to Lket mosmed salt ¢" tuved eat Te tad 93 
‘=e ysered af ysauad Sles to tefiet sdv baw aa. oi 

-t Kemet faxzbas ied las ‘te oid oat of bebname 
\theten etusb bor oes at, © Ble at ald 
“ ep tdd ‘to med oxtt 


tasbne tod tact Auovo sed of esabne seats ga #2 ventushe a 





at the expiration of three months defendant sheuld be confined in 
the jail until the fine was paid, ond that he be thereafter dis- 
eharged, Defendant made a motion for a new trial which was eon 
tinued from time to time. August 22, 1931, motions for e new trial 
and in arrest ef judgment were overruled, and an order was entered 
Sliewing sixty days for a bill of exceptions upen motion of defende 
ant to be released on probation. The cause was continued to the 
Oetober term. Orders were from time to time entered extending the 
time for the filing of aw bili of exceptions and staying the iseu- 
ance of the sittimuse. June 1, 1932, Judce Gabath denied the motion 
to release defendant on probation, as the abatract states, "for 
want of jurisdiction." By agreenent the iseuance of the mittinus 
was then stayed te June 6, 1952, upon whieh date an order was ene 
tered extending the time to file the bill of exceptions thirty days 
and staying the issuance ef the mittimua for thirty daye. This is 
the laet order appearing in the record, 

Be bill of exeeptions apoears in this record, Defendant 
presente his case upen the comzon law record alone, 

Seme of the points do not demand extended consideration. 

The briefs argue irregularity in the constitution of the 
grand jury, in that the reeerd as originally filed shows that only 
tventy-two instead ef the lawful twentyethree men were galled. an 
asnended reeord has been filed, hevever, which discloses that there 
were in fact tventy-thres grand jurors; that the name of one of the 
jurors wan omitted from the reeord, apvarently by insdvertenee, 
Moraover, there was mo challenge to the array and therefore,( even 
if the objection had been based on fact) 1t could net be successfully 
urged here. Barron v. The People, 73 Ill. 255. 

It is alec contended that since the final jJudgnent was en- 
tered June 30, 1931, and defendant was thereafter permitted te leave 


the court room and remain at large, the court was without jurisdiction 


wey . 3 
— 


BE heaitace ad Biwerle toshso ted aad aon eotsT to acksations ane ia 
sabh wes toowedt od ox tedd fue blag aew eat? ostt Lh 3 mw that oid 
“noe Gew Hodate folxt wan @ wet aotios & obax tashanted bop tens : 
Latxs wee « tat esetien ates — Pavers .eeke oe aml d owt i ent 
beretae sew tebts te bas ,bedutivo etow taemgbut, te teonte 4J vou 
-basteh Xo soliom sage Amoktqeone Yo Lid & tod wend yoeta gniwot tc 
dai a? bennl tang ase —— att tohtadery ae borse lot ⸗ ot all 
‘ std paktaa tas perodss omit od outs meet otew stebTd — xsdadoo | 
~iwed wait gaiyate hase eavigqnoxe » sake 8 t missy wet ws 
nett on ond bolueh sted papa Seek ft ony sauna de ett 20 
: x —D souttede ast se solindorg ae Aoabas ted | gan: fea 
s | aumdathe on? Yo spacueak od? taonmeras x * "saghdo ube teat, teey 
| aap aon wehto ae gtah dodte mege met, 2 emule, of, beyase $ a0 















al bar — petit ot —— a. ons cmmak @ ng 
—— kronge 96% at gaks 20 
Seabee ted — hdd ah atacugs —— ®. uns —— 

setts Breese wal mecmipe oat mone come aid atm st “a 7% 

| ottexeb tenes bebagdxe Aamaeh soa oe satded ods to — * : 

| 908 Yo nodset Meno ext ad Chita Lugennd oupte WEA OME coy 

| hae fads aworly Bosit viioaly ito. se breset wa 3 seus at et * 

aA sho kins ete. mtn anid ays aun sree ‘ont te santas | Gadoy sag 

— 909 esnolouth MyLiiw ,xOvOWOH ,bOIIT mIAy Hai trogoT be 


a 8 one a enna ‘oie “eas” dad 9 bamty me eae toa a 










228 * oF i ogre 
“a8 mew — tant't ied sonke tans notapsnop — a haa em: ae 


evnet oF bess hanes wt tast0ss sew sashastes ban fERE 08 ont " 


modveibe runt taon⸗ bw eee owe sut2 woptal to — bas avor som, oid 


a Sas St 


Se Io ee 
— — 5* 


te enforee the judgment on August 11, 193%. Defentent does net state 
the record accurately upon thie point, Defendant was required te 
enter into recognizance, which appears in the record, for his ap- 
pearance after the date of sentence, Defendant cites The Peonle v, 
Barrett, 202 111. 286; Phe Feoole ¥. Shattuck, 274 111.491, the 
record distloses great leniency toward this defendant but does not 
4iseclose facts such as existed in the eases cited end relied on 
where, after the return of a verdict, defendant wae allowed te go 
without sentence being imposed upot hin. ere, the judgment and sen- 
tence were entered upon the finding promptly, ond exeert for stay ore 
4ere antered at defendant's request the sittinue fer the imprisonment 
of defendant would have iseued as o matter of course by the clerk of 
the court, As ¥¢ have already said, the reeord discloses unusual 
favors to thie defentant, but uven hie own motion and at his own re- 
quest. Se ie hardly in a poaltion to gontend that orders of the court 
entered through bis inslatenee should now be held to aonstiiute error 
such ao Would require a reveresi of tne judgnant against him, ‘he 
pusishment of defendant has been leng delayed, tat that is ne reason 
—— not be inflicted at all, 

Defendant says that the penal clause of the statute does not 
authorize the imposition of a fine where, a3 here, the sentence pro- 
nounced is iuprisecmment in the county jail. He contends that upen a 
proper construction of the statute a fine unay be imposed only in 
@ase the imprisonment is in the penitentisry. See Cahili's i141. Rev, 
State. 1931, chap. 33, par. 117, see. 1, p. 1010. Fe do not se > 
interpret this section of the atatute. The pensity provieien is that 
"all parties to such conspiracy shall be liable te a penalty of not 
less than one hunired dollars, and net more than five thousand del- 
liars, and to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a tern of net lese 
than one year nor more than twe years or imprisonment in the county 


dail for any period not exceeding two years.” We construe this section 


—4 
etads fen evod pawhased .88OL (LF Peuged ne Saekeiut odd boxotaw es 
od hexlupet aev dacheetat .datog whet nog entorevee ‘gxeced ort 
Ge ait tot ,eroaet oat ak etesygqs dotite ,domastugeses otal aedne 
| gt adnan get este maadu⸗ 160 one saen td shah on¥ 5 ber * 
ptt BO E6Y + bdebot oat 
gon mesh tud fnehasttes alot beevod qoastiel deerg ene * 
“go hetlon bun h e seuen wilt AE betalxh aa dove atont evoteatt 
ag of hawoi fn cow “Pas hom'tes yea * * acide * we —8 























toonnonkrgint ot 1o% cumlethe odd teowpet al faubus'teh te pede: 
te iitwte wi? ye senwos te edger © oa Seubert ovad btvow DAn 
‘founocu sevolorth brosey ad? ,bine <hestle wea * * ais 
Lee amo is Se Bae Uottom hwo eld neg duit ,dmeboo ten wre 
dauon odo to exebre fede bnsdane oF wekiieoy w ad Et 
| gente etusttence of died of wee Biivode eons gakend els 4 * + be 
oat abt jaklege Pest ata dart, ilk a Rae’ * i 
Ronwen ot ak daslt dwt faa ‘gned aged gat kein bree 
| oe hie de betoketat of Soa Mawode) 
ton oh sdudste odd to waucto inwiy Wdd tadd byew tnoda'teg 
“one onvedion of jeter as ,ozedw emit » To mostleoned sty ex itodtn 
s aoau todd abnotaoe 08 «Lint ydasén oat at ¢anadoatignd af B pa ' 
“at Lao beaonnt ad yam Smit » etviatn off to dotdovtenoa e060" 
— ‘cid at kehdes doh “Miatbaidiind Gh ii'sl Wig Eel We 
: deen tan ob 8% .0L0L .q .f Jowe .CEL .xeq Be sede Met sates 
ted ab ‘nokelvorg Ytinseg ed? .etudade old YO nelson elds Yougt 
gem te yoteneg a sd ofdats of Llane yaciquacs Koon ot snes tnt 
afoh bomawods ovit aad? oxom dod bate jewelted Sextaui wie made 
seed fon to axed & 10% weelsaséinog ‘ed ab penonitgmt of of bee mit 
ay ‘utaves ost af Srounoal teams Is wxaey ows anald om ton 108 i 
‘aobdows atus ountanse av * ers0y owt ‘putboonx0 ton helaen yas tet — 






























4 


of the statute to mean that in the diseretion of the court a fine 
may be imposed and also impriscnment either in the penitentiary or 
in the county jail. The esnstruction for whieh defendant contends 
would be (we hold) contrary to the plain intention ef the legislature, 

It is eontended that the court erred in entering a single 
Judgment on the general finding of guilty on the three counts in 
the indictment. This contention is bused on the theery that the 
punishment provided for the orime deseribed in ene of the counts 
was 4ifferent from the punisiment aliowed by law in the ease of 
conviction om either one of the other tro counts, Defendant cane 
tends that the sentence and juignent gheuld have apeeified upen 
which eounts the same were entered, and cites Zhe People vy, Burney, 
@17 ILL. App. 322; The People v. GSteig, 253 111, App. 447; and the 
Peovie vy, Siiiott, 272 141. S24. Defendant says that the indictment 
alleges different accusations brought under the different sections 
ef the conspiracy lsw. Ye do net so understand this indictwent. 

We hold this judgment ic net errencous beeause entered upon 
the general finding of guilty without epecifying the particuler 
counts, and the caseaseited by defendant de net suatain his eontention. 

In People v, Steig, 258 111. App. 447, there were three 
eounte charging three distinct erimes under the Prohibitien aet: 

(1) umlewful sale, (2) unlawful possession, and (5) unlawful trans. 
portation of intoxicating liquers, Cahili's Ili. Hev. Stats., 1931, 
chao. 43, see. 1, et seg. ‘the jury found defendant gudity in manner 
and form as charged in the information. The court imposed a fine 
of $306 and coste of suit under the first count, $500 under the see- 
end count, and $500 under the third count. ‘The court also adjudged 
that defendant should be impriscned in the county jail for ninety 
days and that ne stand committed until finenand coats were paid. 

The judgment of imprisonment was not imposed under any epeeific 


gount, It was the first offenee by defendant for possession, and 


Ont a aoe wd To nohSonwe Ry Oh ch tact? mom of aaktanw oth — 
1 Yisiinedioeg aut a ted? is toeenoetcuah onte ona decogab oe yaa 
abaadnae Fambewn'twh code tat ne hocnsewew ost Lkey rybuety: wnt Owe 
(mtn kesyAS anit Yo ame seta Blea, wis ot cure sree (akon ow) eet pitinow 
 etgate « Senate Bh anon 4 dtgaa mgs * at Dadnied nen nen teeta i 











eae date roads elt ae Bead ot aptiemmnes tet. sSanatotbat eit 
eimres anh No eae at hadinouch Sato Md cot Hebhveny tno * te 
>, he, i oor oh wel-gd beweilea sapme — * ee pene Pah ea 
atom tasbae ted edctrme amt teito oct Ye we — * as ' 
mtar he hove, —————— . — 
og, ak wat bo fee —— Aues sted 

















 pttietotbad whit Saavetshns ob S00 ob: s time ie sate i 
Hoge beXAdD wELeOS BUASHOTIG Sem ok Femnyb st atile fort oP An + nae a8 
ea due bose wit palytiooge tredd bw qo dikey to gathakt fete wy th 
“ok mao⸗ al’ alodsse tea ob Janbao ted yt Setdokmween. sat aa 4 * J 
noruid oeew onett 092 .9GA Wht OOe minds ae sdeons ok 
| on mele eisont ood weha abate domkteld omndt gabpred poe 
nenand otve tw (2) tae pmbevennog <itwe die 48) eke tev ee id 
4802 ,.aded® vol 2042 ef £thde®  sereupht yottookeeaad ere —8R 
sense tk YStiua sanbxe tod Anwe't yeul ag? pan de gt othen, Gh) senate, 
90th & boneget trueo ott .woddonnatak od ok bopgade al 
“pai edd webu O26 ,doweo #9112 ocd tehaw thie. te eteon bua 006k Bo 
begbubba onia sue OAT. .gmuos Hebd 20 anew 0000 ae 2nwon haw | 
— Sebi aban cot Chet yinueo salt mh Bawon keqmk sal Manan — ast 
“sbkag 9508 B80 dasaomkt Lttns bedttnmen: binds ost faith hoe ⸗ — 
— ———— wie rena evogmt ton sa sracucont aged Yo —— — 



























the law did not provide beth fine ond imprisonment for a first of- 
fense of that kind. The minimum penalty under any eount by way of 
imprisonment was sixty daye. The Appellate court h@lid that while 
the court might cumulate the punishwent fixed on ditTerent counte, 
the punishrent tcposed under the different counts must be apecified 
with reforence te each count, and cited The People v. Sarney, 217 
Ill. App. 322, and the it, B72 LAL. BOR, 





These cases are acplicsble where the counts of an indictment 
charge separate ond distinet offenses. That ia not the ease here, 
Gn the contrery, im this case these three counts charge only one 
offense, namely, that of conepiracy, ond the eesence of that orime 
is the unlewful combination, not the means used to carry out the 
obiects of the combination. The indictment charges a single ¢rime, 
in the separate counte and mumerates the different means used te 
attain the unlawful purrese, The same offense ecuentially, however, 
was declared in eneh of the courte, in such case, the judgment may 
ype entered on «a general verdict of guilty provided there ie one good 


sount. It was se held in The. uegm, 314 111. 77, where 





one count charged larceny se bailee and another lareeny by aubex- 
RQliement. Ales in The 





ole ve. Yarfield, 261 Tih. 203, where it wae 
held proper te jJein « eount Yer conspireey to obtain money and prep- 
erty by false pretenses with anether count eharging conspiracy te 
obtain the same money and property by means of the confidence geome, 
although the Judgment was revereed for other reasona, in seonepi- 
Yaoy the gist of the offense is the unlawful combination, and it is 
net necessary to set out in detail in the indietment the moans by 
which it was undertaken te accomplish the illegal purpese, The 
Zegple ve. Blumanberg, 271 111. 140; The Peoole vy. Sohneiser, 345 
Ill. 410, 

“hile there were three counts here the indietwent enarged 
only one conspiracy, namely, the one to defraud a municipality, 


* 
« * — 


oto dexit #« tot sommnvsitqet bas ont Htad ebkrorn ton bth ms enh, 
Xe yaw ga fave Yow esau yrdanig sumed oot Hata a | 
eit au⸗ bbe anas — ——— wanta sav tee "4 









208 hit ave —Bsã— bs Rem * a a 
$i mb thant ne Te asauoo ects onesie efined kewa ote Asa aaua pRact 
*ted once walt fom ad sont -aosoeTig domigelh bom, saesegne may 
ian yi SWISS Siooy OOTY suAte Omme whit wh yw aaa | 
amine sad? tg sanmenee oft bas ,yoetkeeans Yo sas? M8 tet? 
ous —2 — ot boon Sraom ait tou ,mollenidmes tetwa tow nat ad. 
ertas shania a commas trmadothat oat .Rohtealdnen ac? ⁊a atoahdod 
Of BOAw Banos SaOKeTT LD sett sederemun baw — —— atte — 
— E— seilelenenoe sane the samme oat (eRemtig Li twats * ahed be. 
Yt demaghet etd oeeo Spas ai satan edd te dane at Doma ten a ec <2 
bone eno ad J—— bobiverg ea ibery to soibusy MICEOE # MD hoxetne od 
aieste (OP £4 BS — D .¥ ska90% ox ab Seas oe eae, hace seo 
~aedae qd yom xordsenms baw entied aa ) otek bopum 10o 8. 
jos ¢2 aterty , cok lie soe tet «2 © 
“qety bis wnos alatda of — 02 see 6 ahot. of wee ’ 
Of Kostiasaee yatyrtots Javon wodions dtiv aenandety — — . 
Smty Pomohitaae oct Ye anane yd yrregeny han Yores neem ant skatdg.. 
stoamoe ak  .anonsex wedse tet baereves asw danmphwt 2 guest tar. | 
si $k bus ,doltoaidung iatentaw edt af era No oct ‘te. 26.8 ⸗⸗ 
Ud acuaas ot taomtod hind ot Wh Sheteh ah tg, a8. Ot Yteee : “a 
ant onary Ingetis ext daiiqnosen et apdedtobmar - 1 dose, 
ae — 1084 £2, v 2 J 
get. fuombozbat ont exes ‘atauos sonst — ones —— sug * — 


Ware Ha 


| — “ Suartos oe one ot stiosen axe one noe eco YLae — * J 































namely, the County of Cook, and the judgment inflicted a punis:ment 
prencribed for that partioular offense. it is alleged that the in- 
dietment was defective, in that it does not appear anywhere whether 
or not the taxes lewfully became duc, or that the lower valuations 
of the tracts of real estate were not Tound to be eorrect, or that 
the alterations were knowingly made, sx that defendant wae a momber 
of the bear? of commissioners or any agent or empleyee of the same. 
Alec, it ie said that 1¢ does not appear from any allegation in 
the indletment that the taxes for the yoar 1928 had not been paid, 
er whether the property mentioned therein was exempt from taxation, 
or what the figures alleged to be altered were at first and what 
figures were substituted by defendant and others, it ise said that 
for these reneone the indictment failed to inferm the secused of 
the nature and cause of the accusstion against him, end Rebair y, 
The Peenie, 60 Ill. 442, end Maloney v, The People, 220 111. B96, 
are cited, 

the indietment etates an offence, and there was no motion 
to quash it, therefore ell technical objeetions were waived, The 
People vy. Glarsbere, 326 11. 37, The indictment was sufficiently 
specific to apprise defencant of the exact charge upen which he was 
to be tried. It wes net nocessury to give such saeeific deseription 
of the seans used as would be required in s onse of an indletwent 
fer felony. The Peonie ve. Lloyd, 504 TLi. 23; The People v, Seefelat, 
312 T1l. 441, ‘Thie is not a case where the indietwent wholly failed 
te charge an offense as in The People ¥, Klawangki, 218 111, 482, 
and The Peoyle v. Puffo, S18 I11. 280, upon which defendant relies. 

It if finally urged in behalf of defendant thet that part 
ef the judewent thich orders him to be committed te the county jail 
in defavlt ef the payment of a fine of $1000 and te be confined in 
the jail until the fine is paid, is indefinite, uncertain, incomplete 
and unautherized by law, Sectien 13, divisionié4 of the Criminel dede 


‘feemintaug a begotling susemhul, sat hes leet Te vinsok sd «yfomes 
ek net eat Regie ab 1% ovaevte weluelinag tat xe? bedimaeng 
cetedw otecryse xacqqe ton aoeh o2 sacid ah povitested caw treated 
 exettanlar aevel att Sadt te yeu emaned yiivtent wmend oat tom 
fale te | seweree of oF nwo ton orew etatny Leet no neoeed-edet0 : 
rodues 
saa ody Te Soyolems Xo thnph Ene TH exenotnetmnes ‘to taaet efi te 
ae kee_elia que cord sasgee fen seo 22 dost Binet tt iil 7 
dhey aped tex bad SOL eey est aw weed wet tout tamed othak ed 
— mot squone saw nivtedt deacttans yioeqetq wit codttndewe 
tade bae teri? te wrow beredte od wh Beye die eomglt ot pate a0 
Gale Bhar ef £0 eeeddo tue taste oh et hetudi tedua. agew 
°° Rey Dwaewoee on antetat of Bette? tonpebtet gete amoseet oF 
gt aha to betw , mbiX Soatage anhengnenh ath inate im 
“_ aes ean , ; A heim BOD hE Me: 7 * 
tolsou oa waw stadt hee jsensThe ae natete: ation oe 4 
ag? Jbeview otee amedtestte Ledladvet ila ete tereds ** 
Wleann iol tine aew Sosesehbat ed? . AVE. 100 ORE yum 8% 
 gaw of tobde moe egedde foaks at Yo Poahow teh oolegee ——— 
aoragt tamed —R —,,,,,⏑—— — 
tnsctothal an YS e880 » ab Bethepet ed Simow ee bean aaaem at? Xo 
thieroes ,9 ShnowT okt YES LET DOB: — ov efaved ody synotet ere? 
Roktet yLlede fasntuthal Leb gh DOLE 
ibd £7 OL2 Banas eicent pet a2 ee onmeTto oe eguada of 
saehter gaara od sotdw ooqu ,OBE «Lik SLE» — «Y egesi est dae 
(ftaq- Ged? dads tassaetah Yo Yhecied at hoguw ylteatt elle too 
lat qinwoo OXI of SodPhumes od of mts evebtn cle ketw smomphe ot a 
> mt bout tatoo e¢ of be GOOLS Te antt o To taamyeq oat to edug'teb ah 
—E — — 0 snd Laat oe : 
9000 Lenialrd sdt Yo eeaoteivih .Ef mobgea® . wad yt bon kres | 









































7 


(see Cohili's Tl. Rev, State, 1931, sec, 15, par. 756, cheap. 34, 
v. 1095) provides: 

"When a Sine is inflieted, the court may order, as a part 
of the judgment, that the offender be committed to jail, there te 
rewain untii the fine and costa are fully paid or he is discharged 
according to lar.* 

This seetion wae held constitutions) in hennedy v, the Veople, 128 
ll. 649. Section 17 of the sume code providers in substance that 
whenever it shali be mude satisfactorily to appear to the court, 
after all legal means have beau exkaurted, that any person who is 
confined in jail for any fine or ecouts of prosecution, for any 
eriminal eoffenss, usa no estate wherewith te pay aueh fine and 
ceoaste, or costs only, it sneli Be tne duty of the court to dbacharg@ 
such person from further imprieonwent for sueh fine and costs, whic 
diseharge shall operate 4a a sompiete reiease of the fine ond costa, 
provided that nothing therein shall authorize any person te be dige 
charged from impriscnment before the exsiratioa of the time for 
whieh he may be sentenced to be imprisoned, a6 part of hie puniahaent, 

Section 16 of division 14 of the omme code provides in sub- 
stance that if the person senvicted, together with one or more suf- 
ficient aureties, will acknowledge a judguent in faver ef the 
People of the State ef Dilinois, fer the amount ef the fine and 
costa,or the costa only, when ne fine is imposed, the oourt shabh 
cause the same to he entered in full satiefaction ef the fine aad 
costs, oF costs only, with «= direetion that if the Judgment is net 
paid within five momthe from the time of entering the same, exeou- 
tion shall be issued thereon, and defendant shall, upen the entering 
ef such Judaaent, be discharged from impriscnment on account of such 
fine and costs, but that he shell net thereby be discharged from ony 
imprisonment which is wade a part of his punishment, not denendent 
upen the peyment of the fine or cents; that if the Judgment so ene 


tered ie not paid within five wonthe from the entry it may be ene- 





88 ease vat tod 0 .ooe — scab —* tet a the Sosa) 
i soli ~ wehivony — 
Pog a eo (tote Ye devia: est sbosottut rs —9 * — 3 


et — wid nebee the oy taste, 
hagvarion LG — ‘aad ae Ateq elidt'exe alseo bane 






















teat | eoanisins 4k — ener omen ont te th sek tne me, ait a 
sSikoo sad a? Susgae of Yhliatantediae @bum ed Alac a4 we on * 

ps Fen vowing use fade ,besensdine need avast —XR aged Aa a" a, 
_NME 101 ymolwopsonn Ye Ainge Mo tt yao net Atak at beak tison,, 

hee 9002 Foun qaq 98 aah oieiw otetae om —* ennai A — J—— 








: | tin Late “gitaes pace enn hea ss —J Sag actoa dig — 
tava bie en's gat te, seme ten fe Lome. * ae p etasegn these f * 
wath ed ag Roeked Yee enésoatuas, fints aE pats om rant 4 e von 
| * eats ost “to noltariqne e@f erated panes teas aor 09 . 
“seme aie “he s0g, ba ,bovomiaqmd of of kee mosnoe of yam eat 
us Ba wehivens ahaa wane. O68 Le, ib aokalrth * 2k ——— 
08 oxen to ane Stlw qedtoged sbototvnes: meres * Mute : 
wate ‘te tovet ab saemgowl & eaboiwenion. skbe sonlons ua 
paw sits wel? Yo tameme pal ‘x02 blomisth Ie stete, exis * z. 
— 108 ost sbonoqus aL eal? oo amate eeneg. nat ” * 

















—5 






te wort beyredoath ad —— tem kine ot, tans we . iy fe 
tambon ob jou -tmacio tng add Re faq @ wha ad delute 8 7 





fereed by execution, in the sane manner as other judgeents at lew, 

Defentant econtenis that through the failure of the court te 
order as part of the judgrent that defendant might be “dlacharged 
according to law,” he {se deprived of the benefit of the law ae proe 
vided in sections 16 and 17, ond cites Billingslgy v, The People, 
66 111. App. 233, where it was held that an order committing a dee 
fendant to jail fer contempt in refusing te obey a decree of the 
court, which 414 not give defendant the right te purge himself of 
the context ty obeying the decrees and did mot contain any provision 
Limiting hie imprisonment to such time as he might be "discharged 
according to law" was erronecus, 

in The Peo-le vy. Pirfenbrink, 96 11. 63, which wae aleo a 
ease where @ fudgment cenmitting for contenpt was reviewed, the 
Supreme court hel¢ that « provision of the erder that defendant 
sheuld be confined until the further order of tha court was vold as 
being in effect lmoriscmemt st the pleasure of the court. In 
Bawilton vy. State, 78 Ohio State 76, 34 8, &. G01, «a defendant was 
sentenced for the violation of a law which provided that a eourt 
might in its diseretion order the persen convicted te stand commit- 
ted to the workhourne until the fine and esets of prosesution were 
either paig “or until he be discharged therefrem by allowing a 
ereait of sixty sents rer day om much Tine aid costes for such day 
ef confinement in such workhouse, or be otherwise legaliy discharged." 
The reviering court there held that the conditions of the release 
being thie clearly exeresse4 in the statute, they becaze and were a 
necessary part of every proper sentence imposed thereunder, aud that 
While their omistion will not reeessarily render the sentence wholiy 
void if any part of the punishment impescd was sutsorized by lew, it 
nevertheless made wach sentence incompicte sand errenecus. Ye the 


sontention that the errer was not prejudicial the court answered 


that a sentence of imprisonment in a erininal case must, in and of 





{Hi go Rtaemgbul wate ae thoi Oras ond Gt ,webswonke ye Bowte? 
eo? gtuco odd ‘ie orulia’t st Agwowls feds ebandaon: demheete® (845 or 

heytadoath® of ings txepeleh test sasmphul ott ‘te sag en ‘tebe 
ooty aw wal ads to @itened add we fovtaneh at ex * wat of yalbwooe 


Se LN vets 


sehaeeh at — gedis bao .vf haw Of acel toon at hebty 
* tebao a ted? biod aaw $t orn tee 0h. at * 


pat. 


oa to eetash & yedo of yatau'tex at tqae2 neo tot Lint ot saabast 
“te ‘Seaaie 4 sweat es dagit sii? fanhas tes vets tom bi» in hier — 


wisely J hae 
seivlverg yaa aladnos fon bth bres ‘potest ou⸗ oatede vxe aEies aos ot 
— — 

begieiesih” of sdyis of an oats fous oF tess bgt aid aabeiots 

aed RE Shay? — 


—D——— Baw bent oo 
* —9 ob 
# ooiw enw dipidw ,83 .1f% 30 dab aGap REL .y acon oft at oe 


peare I  0% £5 — 
⸗ phewedve x sew a qu taas ‘to’ gal g2 kamen 1mm su s —— 
(Sat baw heh jad? tebuo 949 Te sete iver a seed pho 






» Sage i 


aa blev ean aa⸗se⸗e ety To «ete sextant oat fh tous bentince Ce 
a $109 add “te oman Lig ext 4* ——— soorts sb 
at tasbre ted a , 108 fa 88 * erage obo ae ‘ 


tats % a * 


ee oe 





rudo ry sade bobivertq rita Beis wal ⸗ Yo aot tatoty ods aot oroo⸗on · F 


—— passe os hedoteues neared “a — wok torte tb ott a a . 
Ligtve , Soe ds 
ouow nok tusoaova te etaeo bic ont: ang tito sanorsttow ext ee 


guiwette yd sortotens boguadseth od oat rita x0 ing | coats 
* Hoes xe? staoa ban ontt dows 26 ah — ——— —— te “ 
* -Beyrasion te tiiagel ealeredio ad 10  Sunorizer aun st srosont tase ‘te 
anne £07 edd ‘Le eagisibmoe edt — * bien oresit — antwotyex oat 
4 guew bite ounsed yout stubste one nt boevoxexe vimele emis nates 
todt ‘bas tebaversast —R oa ties — erer⸗ ve * eisanooen 


eiteste eonstnem et kohans ‘ihxasunons ton Lite moten toe xtodt : 


i 7 








fi wel ot bonkror dus aoe bovoqat tneacte tang odd Xo ane yaw byt | tor 


sat of <euounerse ‘baa neo lqcoeal eoansane | Koue — snesocerevan | 


— borewens x09 ont? farothutere fea saw aores oar tarts ’ 2 | 
Gr | — ei f GH 
to nas wk dau 9829 kamiuahto ra at — * —8R a 


wr ne im 


itself, be definite acd complete in all ite material terms and se 
certain and accurate as to the time of its eommencement and proper 
termination that it showld not be necosuary fox either the prisoner 
or the officers charged with its execution to apply to a court to 
ascertain its meaning. ald the court: “In other words, te borrow 
the language of Norris, J., in re jionre, 14 ©. o. Ko, 344, ‘a man 
who is compelied to have a law suit te get inte Jail, cought net, by 
reason ¢f the uncertainty of hie sentence, be compelied to heve 
another law suit to cet eut.'* the judgment was reversed and the 
eauee renanded fer re-sextenee according te the lav, 

In Howard ve the @¢ouia, 3 vieh, 208, where a atatute pree 
seribed as the penalty for an cifenee, a fine or laprisonmment fer a 
Limited time, or beth, the court held taat « judguanut that the dee 
fondant pay a fine and stand committed watil 1¢ was paid, was void 
as aijudging an indefinite tera of imprisonment. The court said 
that the trial court could fine or imprison, o¢ within ita disere- 
tion do beth within the limite fixed by the etatute, bus that be 
eould mot imprison for an indefinite time; taat the period muat be 
determined and fined by him judicially. 

the People olte 22 Parte beilig, 51 lil. 66, berkenfieid v. 
the Peomis, 191 1li. 272, and Ket bo Sah GAL. B82, 
but en exesination of these cases discloses that in each one of them 





the Judgment ef the court contained the previse in substaner as 
Stated in paragraph 14, division 14, of the Criminal code. they 
aleo cite and rely on Ih 





gki, 254 Ll. 299. an 
exatination of that case disugloses that Jarasiowski was found guilty 
of obtaining money under false oretenses, and hie punishment was 
fixed by the court at imprisonment for one year in the house of 
correction and a fine ef $500 with judguent for aoste., After he 


had served a year in the house of correction he filed a petition in 


a a ee ee ee ee ee ee, ee ee Se eA 


‘ea bn ameod Eabcetuw ath ite at eoeLqnod — 
“¢ey6tg baa dasoponsanse adi to anld oa) Of 4 etexwoee bea nhedtoo 
ateaealty cf sedis «oi yeweeoden of dow Biwwta #2 badd me idankatred 
 @$ Pings « 6d ylaqe ef aolivoets wit Adke bogvady ated Te! aah 
worst of ,ebsew vette 22” oftwed O87 £449 .ghhanee a3 atssteaRe 
ee eee eee ee ee ee re egaugand ont 
Ud .ten tages ,iiel ofal tog of Filia wel w oved OF DEREaomes eR oy — 

 pwad of botivgaas ed ,sotetane ata Ys Yo artecnw aut ‘to aonawe 
. outs bas hoakeves ea¥ Jaouatut eff" Yee Hey od Pie) wee wpaldons 

wel odd of galbrousa somes xbe~og * — 

_witg etuinads a wretts at jaan 
é tot susmaliqut te ealt » pesae Tie ae * Ydingag ott ee bodizas 
8b ad? tale Pooyhut a dats bod dvwoe ont ,sthed tg att Dodhakh 
biey exw ,hivg saw 2 Lidan besPdungw knots tee wnt? 2 woe daehast 3 
Bhsa txwoo off Snomaoutigud Io need Gsiad bal aa gnigbethe ame 
eexusals eth alitiv te ,aonlaqgnd «eo ealt fived #twos hades ‘aith dad 
(ga Gadd dod ,etudutds oat Yo bomb? e8iads os apie dw dod eb nokt 
ad geum holteq was aiid poms wo dik Buber sus NST ee Rag ona SLuoe | 
—— aid gd beat baa ‘boatwietom 
‘Lek otto whgoed off © Sea 
| bia {OVS 2 cat — : 
mot te Bite isos at gadd seadioulh wsede seeds to nobtamtaias ak tad | 
Ba Somisedus al cniverg 648 benladaos Jumeo oud ter sronghat wad 
“get? VwbeO foukadsO eae to ,0d woheivid (ae yorgaray ab botate 
PA .@OR chk aah dane 4 (ne _kor bee Oto ante 
Utituy baw? eaw Linwotsetal tact seasineth oeno sade ’te ay — 
aay Teint aaa wht bas , wonsoderg valet soba yooom gabatadde Yo 
‘Yo exveit ould Gh tony oa0 ‘Tok deeemnbebnqmk se Paee ote td —8X 
— — ————— Yor tmaghwt arke GOSH to emit 2 biwe wodtoweree 
pl — * an ot noldeortos ‘te wake bile HT wake «boven ait | 
me Arasah® i CbeeRe ayes he: ese — 

















10 


the Circuit court for discharge from that portion of the judgment 
which required him te work out the fine snd costs, The prayer of 
thie petition having been denied, he sued out a writ of habeus 
sorpus froz the Cirewit court and upon the hearing wae remanded to 
the custody of the superintendent of the house of correction. He 
then sued out a writ ef errer for the purpose of obtaining a review 
of the judgment of conviction and alse ihe judgaent of the court in 
refusing his discharge. the judgment, in addition to imposing a 
sentence of one year in the county jail, sdjudged that defendant 
should be fined $500 and eosts and further: “In case of the neglect 
or refusal of the defendant, Aarl Jarasiowski, to pay said fine and 
eoste, it is ordered that ai the expiration ef one year aforesaid 
suid defendant be required to work out said fine and eoste, ae pro- 
vided by statute * * * in the house of correction at the rate of 
$1.50 per day.” Defendant's petitien for discharge set up that he 
had no Money to pay the fine and costs; that he was wholly destitute 
and was a pauper within the meaning of the statute, and thet ali 
legal means had been exhausted to eollect the same, ‘the trial court 
held that paragraph 465 of the Grimineal Code did not apply te the 
ease where the defendant was required te work out hie fine in ae- 
cordance with paragraph 168b ef the Criminei Cede, and thie ruling 
was asvigned as error, The Supreme court eaid that the question 
thus raised had been determined adveragly to the contention of de- 
fendant in the case of Berkenfield v, The People, 191 iil. 272; 

that the Criminal Code provided that any person convicted of petit 
larceny or any misdemeanor punishable under the lars ef the State, 
in whole or in part, by fine, might be required, by the order of 
the court, to work out such fine and all costs in the workhouse of 
the city, town, ete., at the rate of $1.50 per day; that under this 
section of the statute the esurt hed power to sentence the defendant 


to imprisonment in the workhouse and «leo to impose upon him a fine, 


— 
iw 


Srommbst odd Ye sodden Peds wov't sysadoesh cet Sevag FhiorkO pxtd: 
‘be seyexg ef! ,ateeo haa 6nbt ede tuo dior et as becinper dedi 
Beaded to vite » tuo bee a ,bolaos seed gaived aoleiseq estas 
od bebeaue: saw gabrxzed 8% moqu bac s2uee Shope td: oxi wext eran: 
ok ,mottesrree to eeued eAD te Saehentniceque ed te ghodews ond 
wolver w gittlagde te eaoyteg eh 4O% tore Le 620% w Aue fase nest 
at tauee sit to. sawaybut ost cule han aelielyacn te tammphut add Do 
& gaivoqat ef molgihha al ,sacmgbet ont .sptsaveth add palew'ter 
tuphaeteh tadt boyhwthe ,ftet yeawes at ak any emo la somednom 
tooigon off to ssae al" steddawt ben tase baw O08G bent od Sinede 
han @ult Mow yo oF , Binweinorel Laat ,tambae tnd ont to kiewon 10 
‘ blesstete they ete To Moltextqne ett sn Sant herebte of #4 yateow 
ORY Gh ,Stead hue ult Blow suo stow oF buvtapey od daahae tod — 
| te eet ofl Ye aotteowrs Te sewed oid ak * * © adudnse Ee bObey’ 
ad geld Gwe fou eytavibedh tot we téiteg of Pmabow toll Tents ges 9a: 
eturtinsh yLtedw sew ait sont pete has ent? end yet Youn on bast 
Lie ged? bos ,stwtote ord to yuiuacn at obipiw coqueq « eew baw 
sts Sektt ont omee aed Joetow of betenaiixe 
est ef ylqqe fon 62h bod Leukeiad ott te 88d LE EVYBTE dat 
asm a2 ontt eld suo vaow of hektuper naw Pombno'bob ax eres ones 
gukiut etsit baa ,whod leatatx) aad Yo d6aL dyetyeteg 1 br eeeebte 
aob ‘he Rokiantaos odd oF yLeotevhe hentuxeteh noad hes bow ken eauit 
{87S £62 £0L .efooeS emt .v bio Linesaek Yo sasg ead at domhine® 
ttteg Yo betelvass sowteg yas tadt hebivetg shoo Sumteted ant teat 
bo⸗aes ond te vel eft tebaw eldovietang Tocmesehalm yom to quent 
to tebue ont yd ,bexdapet ed sity lm yondt edt yttow mk te ofese nt 

Te sewochixow ot af adaon die baw omit sean #40 stow 98 ,taMOw ext 
ald? reday dust yeh t9q OL.LE Ro aden wslt tm ysode samet yytte on : 





Sane teh seit oompava of xomog hed Ftueo oot egutese ont Yo aosoaa 


. mid moqu snvqat of oni has seuedicen out at ¢mmacatsgnt o# 


ll 


and te provide in the judgment that in ease the fine was not paid it 
should be worked out in the workhouse at the rate of $1.50 per day. 
The Court furtuer said that defendat was not entitled te be dis- 
charged as a pauper; that paragraph 163b, which authorized the 

court in proper cases to require that a fine be worked out by the 
defendant at 91.580 per day, “wae enacted for the purpose of enabling 
the State to collect in later fines that could set be cellected by 
execution, and it may upply to a case “here the defendant is unable 
to pay in money as well ae to a ease where he is bble to pay but 
unwilling to 40 so." The court alec said: “As long as the prisoner 
is able to pay his fine in laber it wannot be said that ‘all leghl 
maans' of collecting the fine have been exhausted, where the judg- 
ment requires the fine te be paid in laber.”® ihe court eoneluded: 
“A prisoner ie not entitled te his discharge, under peragraph 455, 
where the judgment requires him to pay the fine in labor, merely by 
showing that he is 5 pauper and has no money with which to pay the 
fine," 

There ig no provigion in the judgment entered in this ease 
requiring that the fine shall be paid in work, und the deeision in 
the Jaraslowski case is therefore not applicable, @e think, in 
order that the judgment of the court may be accurate, plain and 
eertain, it should contain the provision in paragraph 14, division 
14, of the Criminal Goede, and that defendant is entitled to have; 
the cause remanded in erder that a definite sentence may be imposed, 

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause renended to 


the Criminal eourt of Cook county with leave te the State's Attorney 
of said County to move for, and directions to the court to enter, a 


proper judgment om the finding in conformity with seid section 13, 
division 14, of the Criminal Code, consistent with the views ex- 
preseea in this epinion, People v. Bower, 262 Lil. 152. 


RSVERGSED ANP REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 
MeSurely, FP. J., amd G'Conrer, J,, concur. 





a 
#2 bieq Jon enw Ook% weep eame ab gars Gaomyret Seb AP ebRvoTy ob Kam 
Yah oq C8 .de te eter ett te wueieee OMe a dee bottee oF BD ibede 
nih oe ar Basikean dew pareranmeneronfter rape 
oid Yt the AetLOw od ouRT a todd wakUpOT — eoees ance it Se 
PT eT ee eT ee ee eS — — — 
‘QO hates Lkes od feu bkved Vadd saat todar ab tedtree' sd 6: 
efdean eh ganbas'tek oat ovece emee stood Vege Yea 2 hod) a 
tid Yq of OLA oh ot orede eens w or de Low oe venom at ‘gad wh | 
qaseniag of? «es goei ma" thhee oe fte coume out “lou on od galheivm 
fityed Sia? tad Siew of deemne Fi tedel na ‘eukt atd yao ot wits ot 
“ahah, en snes ercwedee need ewed war veld gubvestien to Vamaeit 
ihehuiomen twee sal * oxeded me biug of 99 sat ont eoxtupor daeie 
8b — 
ad chores ;toed ad ath ane yay ot ake eetteped Proms 
edo Yor od atndehe Ayie yoaom on nes Den Keg & — 
eee ; . wie kee SAR oe coneumand eae 
— whith nbcberetam: tubinghit bus at tele rhe Waele ~~ 
ai snigtoeh off tun .Mtew at blew 8@ Okada oni't — —R 
———— wt seine bale 
hes hady joterneoe ef ya busted bar Te: neat de! tad aaa 
bb deorgoneg at neketvore ad) matwe tines HY ptadde” 
40 betttine of saabanteh baat bad ,ohed Dataias ith to (WE 
7 —2* od yom nomenon otiatenh a dats TOKE A behaswwk omnay wad” 
ot Dobuamen sous edt how beexaves — ae al 
































a tate ot *30 ait, J * ote h he 
att aokinen bine ag he eth 
a ie aa wn 7 ee 
Abroama ity thst dila ‘aiemmvan © *” mets 

eh Tey, aro neater, ont * —— 


—— wi a” o tae aot ; J— 
426 ae ene SM arEU ee Re wy irene 


36445 


JOSEPH B, KOVARIK, 
Appeliles, 





QOURT 
v2. 


THE HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 
WEW YORK, a Corporation, } 


went. } 970 T/A.619° 


BR, JUSTIC“ MATGCHATY DELIVERED THR OPINIGN OF THR COURT, 





oF 9 


The Home Insurance Goupany, defendant in the trial court, 
hae appealed from a judgment in the sum of 3350 eitered upen the 
finding of the court in an action upon an insuranee policy. The 
poliey covered loss by thert, robbery or pilferage of one Ford 
Tudor automobile, 1931 model, the oreperty of plaintiff, The 
- poliey was iseued dune 10, 1951, and was fer a term of one year 
from the date of the roliey. 

It was stipulated by the porties upon the trial that dee 
fendant issued the policy; teat while the policy was in feree the 
automobile was otelen, sid that If plaintiff was entitled te re« 
eever st ali the damages should be assessed ot 9350. Defendant, 
however, denied all Lishility for reasons hereinafter explained, 
There was a trial by the court and a finding and judi ment fer 
Plaintiff for $450, which defendant seke ue to reverse, 

While conceding the theft of the autamobile en May 14, 1932, 
defendant contends that it is not liable for twe reasene, (first) 
beeause under the express provisions of the peliey it was agreed 
that (exsept as otherwise provided by the agreement in writing 
added thereto and except an to any lien, wertgage or other encumb- 
vance specifically set forth and deseribed in Paragraph B of the 
policy) the sompany should net be Lintae for loss or damage te any 
property insured thereunder while the eame was subjeet te any lien, 
mortgage or other encuvbrance, and (except as ts any lien, sortzage 
or other encusbranee specifically set ferth and deseribed itn 


Baaad 
i eR at — 
——— 


aT 
ks ie? Had ae 
reas — — 

eo ——— — 


* 12 ‘A. 10 BS bin ER ae RM 


| * * bie a Ri Wy 
_  ERUOS, BRE se wonKRs a se —— wice — “ae 
aad feted eof a2 fastac'teb jyacqne? sommewenl amal add 04” 
odd Boys beeedien 808 tw mw etd 2 ansmbut @ mowt delavion Gad 
ace io fog eumreteal ae Bene Molten ae ak Seuss ede te: ; ‘ 
‘geet gae Yo euarellie te yeeddon (ieee Yd ant — ———— 


Dell — —— — —— ‘chat 



















oe ee ee ee ee 
oot of PSLILIe9 yew Titdalaie tt ta? few ,wotete naw oF hmeie 
| dashaw Tee “CORE te Remtoees od S.fwdae’ — eh Le te xeveo, 
“bette tere Sos taubersn onsmet tet WELGaht She pehewb ymewewed 
40 Fttom het. bow yeti a hee Taoe eat yd faker a aa a J 
————— 
(BORE LOE Wid ne eLivemane ant to Whee ats pathoreme 9 Lith. ew spe” | 
eT) Vastoneow ows tor etewts ven ae 4b datt vded uee tahind eed 














few cow IF wo hteq ody te eae hekvorg neous wrth tebav 2s 
— nt Peowswage ett we Bebivony-esketede aa vena) Wa 








a ‘eh bia x0 * oY ones te oe ton oda wneans ant rene ane (eek Soe 
(ABLE Yas of dootdnw caw aane OF OLiGy Tehavered? Roxweat y wort 
ouay ser mote ye oe ue tqaoxe) 0 —D—— — all 


at bodies fates signet ‘ane ias redo⸗ae si 





Paragraph 2 of the soliey) the entire policy should be void, (unless 
otherwise provided by agreement in writing added thereto) if the 
interest of the assured in the subject of the insurance should be- 
come other than unsenditional and sole larful ernership. Defendant 
contends that contrary to this provision of the policy, plaintiff, 
after the policy was issued, executed two chattel mortgages which 
were liens against the property insured. Une of these was a 
chattel mortgage (a phetestatic copy of which was introduced in 
evidence) purporting to have been exeouted April 16, 1932, and 
showing it had been filed for recerd im the Hecorder's Office of 
Cook county April 25, 193%. It purported to convey the automobile 
te one Alex Dembroweki to secure a judgment mete denoribed for 

the sum of $300, The note, however, wae not introduced in evidence 
and plaintiff teatified (and his evidence is uncontradicted) to the 
effeet that the morteage itself was in bis possession. He also 
testified that he 4i4 not reeeive any consideration for the mort- 
gage, and it is stated in hie brief that the mortgage wae in fact 
cancelled, although the statement ie not entirely justified by the 
evidence in the record. There wss no #xplanation as to why the 
mortgage wae given. 

The evidence offered by the parties on this peint is net se 
clear and epeeifie as it shewld be, but upen the whole we think 
the proof faile te establish that this chattel mortgage was at the 
time of the less, er ever, a valid subsisting lien against the 
aseured preperty. Uniess it was such valid and subsisting lien, 
the insuranee policy was not thereby invalidated. Fuller vy. Bary- 


139 Iowa, 205, Defendant also contends that the insurance policy 





was rendered void by the execution on April 19, 1932, of a chattel 
mortsage to Lewis 8, Bower to secure « leon of 3127.10. Defendant 
eontends that the execution of thie mortgage violated the eonditions 





sa oe he tae 
eosin) ,hior od bhvods Yutho ethtne ede (yrdley avd SoM doorgaget 
#49 12 (edonnat borae palataw ob iorenerge gd hedtvevy salwiesto 
ced bivede epamixats ond Lo teotdes eff uh bomen oat’ te — 
iushne'be .qkiecenve igtwed eios ban amend phaos iu ae we oor ome 
Thaditete , olde 989 Yo woledrory aod oF Yobebitee sau? ebmedage 
4 ae pigs Wom Aosta ons botueaxe ,bawnek gaw yotion om? ted he 
@ aew ween? ‘to sal peorueah vlowqerq oly tontega “ene kE oxew 
ah dooubetsal saw Raddy te des Sideraatonig #) OT dns tase 
baw 860L ,O4 stg hetevene seed oved of aakang (samontws 
* solttO s'xehrened of at fummat rol bedi peed, es, 2 pid aN 
“eLideagdus edt qovase o2 betxageng $1, ,R60L 488, Oem, —* 
tol hedlsoes) oten ssompbal « wemeee of Jiawogde 
opuebive al heowbowtal 2@5 Gan <sevewsl ,otod, oat. J 
sie o2 (badoibertinoscm oi somshive aid haa) bediiteo? Tikdahe 
_ eee 8 otedannnnes af 2h gan Tlomtt egegenam fet: tae 8 
ataom af? 1602 soktersilease yao evivess tom bts, at pnt —W 
joat ab sae ayant tom add dacs tere, ahd al bedade GL OL fect ga 
oad Yt AOLLAdoUl YAotidae Jan ek sunmereta a ct da 





























= dan ws fates, azas a0, snbami 4 cae combine oa 





adaigs ow oiodw amd aequ ted , od Bhs 





—B———————————— pagent 3 


od? demtage oolt autialadue Biiay # , Inve 10 ,aned os } to ome 
12045 gatdatadva bas biiev gown saw 2k aneday sithniiiectiinmelll 
— Ahh obedadtisvad eased) 296 saw ‘wollen a 











“wotlog vomsrwant oxy fast stunner onda 9 
— — 6 te BERL RL Limgd me noktupene ey 
_ Aran tt nok peat to aan a omen, ote y 


sib * GE Tes Ria AS 
“oh a’ 


exa!.? tbn00 oat hesacosy oyagitom elt Ye mettvoexe ads a 











and covenants of the policy and rendered it invalid on the 
authority of Crizelair v. Citizens ins, Co., 160 111. 3209, and 
the numerous eases which follow the law as tere siated. 

We are constrained te bold, bKowever, that the obligations 
of the policy canmnet be avolded by reason of the exeeution of this 
mortgage, It appeare from of sxumination of the poliey that at 
the time of delivery ts¢ policy was subject to a lien in faver 
ef the Universal Oredit Company fer the sum of 4432; that the 
actual ceet ef the automobiles to the inaured was $662.50, and thet 
the automobile wae fully ssid for by the assured end wae nok mert- 
aeged cr otherrise encumbered except ty the lien of the Universal 
Credit Company for this sum of $432. the insurance goxpany there- 
fore took the risk with knowledge af thie iden amd assented to it. 
The evidence shows that by April 19, 1938, the indebtedness of 
plaintiff secured by this lien had been decreased by payments made 
to a balsnee of $108, waich was then due. On that date Bower 
leaned that amount te plaintiff and isaued his cheek payable te 
the Universal Credit company. ‘The check was cashed by that cor- 
poration on Anril 28th and the Credit company then lemed a condi- 
tional saler contract evidencing its lien te Zower, Im other words, 
the chattel mortgage to Mower siusly represents the balance ef an 
unpaid lien which existed against the autemobile at the time the 
Insurance company took the risk. It would be unveasenable te held 
that euch encumbrance would preclude a recovery in ease ef loss, 
ang such helding sould be contrary to the intention of the parties 
ar manifested by the insurance contract. Ho care has been cited 
which holds an insurance contract te be invalid under siailer 
Gircunstences, and the contrary has been held in weil-considered 
caves, foshiand vy. Home Mutaal Ine. Co., 31 Ore. B21, 49 Pac. 864; 


Laughinghou se v¥. Great Fat'l ins, Co., 200 B. CG, 434, 157 S.8,151; 





- \Rbrow tote mi .xowol of andl eff gubsaebiee doondnie” aoten Lanokt 


| ‘oi? ‘to soltaetnd elt of Yuerteus of bieow 


nie eh HhLowak Sh wai 
‘oan , 200 J200 GO 
bees ood ae dal BAG wokfer Soh sans —“ 
—O——— 









ä "te Golsonses 6a) Lo Kodaet YW bobheve ad doen einen 


ga dan? 2 caamecs Gi? ‘ie melvedimwxs Aa see's or ae eon 





@80 dant {8620 to mon add vat eqns’ — ‘eae ont ke 
fedt Ame (08 .R08e sow horweRt out oF eLtdowetna wd tw end — — 


-dxee £00 Gav has between sat vi tet hig eifot wee ———— 
Lanwevhall eit to molt odd oF tyrone Deedavome seteredse 40 beghi 








35 of betionan bas well eat 19 ogheteomk AotW Mabe ond toot 
Re eunwhodtobat ene \REOd (OL Chtga ye ante week sanenive!: 
ohan avuonyag Yd benviaeh mevd baw mat abst et borcwom 

rowel otih Fadi ao hub omits Caw’ HO Rew COLD Yo aOnetad a) ae 
ed efdeyan Maney Ute bowwed nme Tirvemtede wr dawom test Bom ot 
stab gurls yo henecd saw tone edt! igtmameo’ shhae? Aanyevial ot 










 aetedd Qngues SonstweHl oat LOCB4 ‘tO owe MaKe det — — | 


~thasd @ beswnd noi? yuognoo stherD ait haw OO Chee mo sottweng? — 


tt 0 Gone Led ot etaeeetqas Ylquia sewed of vymga neat Ketan one 


od? ome ent ta othdouttun ont Sonlage Sotatne Ao Rete 0 26 bBneeis 
Blox of sidendvaesiw et bivow $2 .dbhx oF ood enwehed oom 


waned ‘te oa2e al Garrone? # Shelberg bioww —— tone take 





‘pedio used asd ease Of “.taexdaow sodatowak itt ‘glk maven bt 
— cebu — wi oe soeYIaMe —** te: — 5— 


x 








» 184 lewa, 290. 
Wa hold the policy was not invalidated by reason of the execution 
of thia mortgaga. 

The second contention of defendant ia that the policy was 
rendered invalid by violation of « provision therein to the effect 
that no recovery sould be Mad under it if at the time the lose 
oceourred there was any other insurance against the property, 
whether such insurance wae valid er coliecctible or set, whieh 
would attach if the ineurance provided for in the peliscy had 
net been effected. ihe uncontradicted evidence shows that Sower 
at the time of obtaining the chattel mortgage took out insurance 
on his interest in the automoblie, payable to himself and the 
Atlas Securities Company to the amount of $100. Defendant eon- 
tenda this violated the provision against double insurance, Ye 
hold it did not invalidate the policy since in order te constitute 
double insurance the two policies «ast be not only fer the benefit 
ef the same persone and on the same gubjiect but ales on the sane 
entire risk. Ye eter, 90 Til, 121. 
See alee Broun o-, 32S. & ({Mnd) 977; 

» 256 &.Y¥.8, 530, 232 App. Liv, 354, 

Tae facts disclosed by this record shew the judgment is 

just, and 1% is affizmmed, 











A¥VIREED, 


Bosurely, F. d., ma O'Conner, 7., conour. 








oes —* 268 ae BE ohh Sah oie ye mee a me ei! : 
ne Aonene At Ve Moros Gt Aeobtiornt fem gw, eaten’ —ã—n 
———— eoaun⸗ tem why el 
waw yedtoy Oc) fede ab diobaw ed Lo seldnotmee kewsen eel — —— 
fooNle emf 27 alecom? agdalvesa ate aghéalody e actavih anemhene: 
 Metek a0? eukd add de 24 $4 estan bad od bhaee —————— 
yubieqote and tandsan concxwead tedte quran Seay heed : 
do has (ten te eldbinniies te bidet sew etaetedah amie <ediete | 
Post Yolieg of? al t0% Qohdvety sommteeth ont 22> Koatia biter 
pewek deus avece songhive betel hentheyan wall sbesestie anet $6 
goonies! tuo doo! egentros Letteds ade qubatesdé to outs ot 
Se Dat “Lieweks. od eidayeyg — 7 mE sestonut pid a : 
— nttee teatime bet .00L8 te semaiendiadin ane ‘as 
at eertauat Gidveb tamlege ale ive . 
Otutiianss ¢f wahte al escle yalleg edt etaBhievnl tam’ : | 
titened set mot yao fon ad daw: eetodtug owt eAs — — 
ores cs 9 he Hu abetaaa sane st ay Daw waONA 










pa eh — at vnn bees ost bunts eae Wo — 
ais ip Ri Pie a ie octane! He sate 8 na 


a aaa pia eh te ae aie gealganiee ‘epee! 
wi ‘ cana abe sh a ‘Boat! call 





tapron 9% sree tae — 
3* wR” eee: —J— — 
i a nal 2 8 ek Br sei waa tt 






F he ee 
pe —— 
—** * SARITA ng 8 gee Pan 8&& 


BRROR 16 MUKICIP 
OF CHICAGG, 
} 


270 I.A. 619° 


UR, JUSTICE BMATCHETT DELIVSRER THR GPINIOK OF THE COURT, 


Va. 


BDWAKD H, AHRENS, 
Defendant in Error. 





Om July 27, 1932, plaintiff, whe is plaintiff in error in 
this court, recovered a judgment by confession sguinat defendant 
Ahrens in the Zunicipal court ef Chieage for $127.62. Gn August 
8, 1932, defendent moved to vacate the judgment and in muppert of 
hie motion submitted an affidavit in whieh he averred kis belief 
that he had a goed defense upon the merite to the whole claim, and 
that he had paid the enount due under the terse of a written con- 
tract entered into between plaintiff and defendant on Kovember 10, 
1930, at which time plaintiff presented to 4efendant & etateent 
of account. The motion wae aliowed, The cause wae tried by the 
court, and at the clese of all the evidence the court found the 
fasues for defendant and mtered a judwsent against plaintiff fer 
coats. That judgeent plaintiff seeks te have reversed. 

The statement of claim averred 2 balance due amounting te 
$95 with interest from Kovember 10, 1930, upon an alleged promisa- 
sery nete, which is attached to the statement of claim aid “hich 
deseribed itself as a “conditional sale agreement." It is under 
seal and contains a power to confese Judgment . Flaintiff is 
described therein as the seller and defendant as the buyer of 
certain codes deseribed in detail "fer the price of Iwo thousand 
seven hundred trelve an@d 28/100 Dellare ($2712.28), paysble at 
200 North Michigan avenue, Illinois, in instelinents as fellows: 








— eae : he ne : ¢s re 





\ 4 ee) ee 
ah eae ae 


200% eur fo xorerse eat Ce Lo Tee matey i ie 


ewe 
ah onus ah. titatelg of ow Mitentesg 68 7 * om . 
tngbasles Janiege aolsestanos yd dammghst a betevonet ,onHoR. * ie 
| dasyeA M9 86. °RL9 tot egea tad te fastoo rab oa * “ 
te trpaque at bows —2 edt stacey of beaver | Bek 
tolted wll herreva of doddw af thumbs Tie baal * he sland moh ’ 











_sioo setaiee a» te aered — tebmas ante —* aw — J a att 
* tadueveX® mo Senban te Rise, Vetonbals | nome 


ons Ww be iat aay oanne * howe saws noktem. 1 





‘sot mi⸗riata — pore * — a, , . * 
————— — ——— dens bat, tot satace : 

oe —— ch somelad = hevtevs atato Yo doapetete pat He 
entmerg begelin se xeuw ,OLeL ,O£ <odwevel ast seetoda dtiw ag 
Hokie ha whaiy to dawmatete ast of besdontia oh doldw ,etom toe 
aroha st si “,¢monmexga efae Lanokethage” « aa Bonds bs tone 
wi Tiigatel? , teeaghwh seeteee of tewog « anietass baw kone 

%o toyed oft an snatina veh tne TOEiee OY 5G SN NO 
basevedt owl Yo evixe est cot* ftated at Bodixoweh ehoon stataen 


—R — srotter oeges hex evtow’ — never 











the date hereof, and One hundred thirty 4 60/100--Dollare ($130.60) 
en the 10th day of every bonth thereafter antil the entire price 
shell have been paid, said purchase price to bear interest from the 
date hereof upon the balanee thereof remaining from time to time 
wipaid at the rate of 6 per cent per annum after maturity, payable 
monthiy. * 

Goon the trial this decument was offered in evidence by 
plaintiff and received without objection. Befeniant then offered 
in evidence trelve shecks payable te the order of plaintiff, indie 
eating paynente reesived after Kovember 10, 1940, fer the tetal 
amount of $1567.28. Attached te the bill of exceptions by the agree- 
ment of the parties are defendant's exhibite 14 and 14, exhibit 13 
being an itemized bill remdered by plainti?’f te defendant under date 
of Nevewber 10, 1936, shewing a cash eredit ef 71145 on the account 
and a belanee due of $1567.25, and exhibit 14 shewing the same etate- 
ment ef secount rendered by plaintiff te defendant on Decomber 1, 
1936, for the same balance, Def mdant testified that by cheek dated 
September 16, 1950, he paid 82000 ef thie $1145 item end that he had 
made some casi payments,the dates ef which Ke could net reeall, 
Plaintiff then produced ite eredit manager, who testified that he was 
familiar with the account of defendant, and that the full eum of 
#1145 nemed in the sales contract ae te be paid November 106, 1930, 
had not been paid. 4m objection was sustained, Thereupon, plains: 
tiff offered to prove by this witness that the item of $1245, shown 
on the note er sales contract, and which by the terms of the cone 
tract was to be paid Kovember 10th, had been paid to the extent ef 
$1050 and that the balence of 995 had never been paid. Plaintiff 
also offered to show by this witness that through an error the 
aceount of defendant had been credited with $95, whieh as a matter 
of fact had been received from another customer, and that apon 


loao.aaa) aap tigtenondos 4 —8 bethaed oag hae 44933 ade 
eoitg sxitue owt Litae wedtaewasté sig 0 — te eb 90k ead * ne 

en? weak Jnagatal seed oF sedng eeadotuy Stee —* need i tlade 
aukt o¢ abi mex? gubudiass owned sosetad edt noe ores 











nae a ak ke tos In mesane TO sim Ree 2 te tame este te be an 2 
| . isenen 


a —R at besette ean teomoak, ohdd Laue ost ble — 


bevette as tee oy ted rere s suedtiw howkenws pon — 
othad ,Tit@nioly be whee ei oF wideyog albedo, erlems eonebive at 
fated ost 10% ,QKEL ,OL tote yok Tod le hevieset atnaayeg gahes 7 
— — 
Ei Sidksixe bE baw BL agidiixw aldamba tal ane ankenen with, Yi pase 
ete embeds Tambae Lob od. Tedgmbe Le i Rete nnes LL hemtew ek am. ya sé % 
aguss a aed a0 AbLEE te an dines a gebwosie — ——— 
—— — fume on? yatwors Sadht ane bam. S66TREE To cmb oman ts bee 
gh Ringe me taebar'tek of Trktatadg yt beweioen, season 10 tam 
% hota koode yd dasit best atane tratae tect wena led einen wat xe etek 
hed od tadt bom made Shire aki? ‘te. oonse bing of .ObGL ,AL eedam “age 
| -kiaoos son bison of dplade Yo BedRbiwds ,edmaeer a enon ohn ™ 
Ga of Jad DOELI¢08 ode .TORRnMm BLhosD od AoouboTE mess TEgatats 
ee et eee ae 
Pin se 194, toduaveil, Diag 9S.08 2a. foantuce upiae odd-nd bomen BALEE 
* Oiatg <avquoredt heaketane naw modinatia Ce erand toa bat : 
stone sAbLkE Ye 94k odd adi eugatiw chad yd avorq od devote TUE 
| “199, odd Yq waned and yd dobdw dang aadan ap:eten Mm Sil 
oe snedxe wah 92 ding wend bod A204 tedenvoR baeq ed ad eowtoaed 
Yiktalsid sbhog aoed qovan bad V6} Re senekad ome -tmas bee wort | 
ait oT tH Sguronds dastt — »—»— Prd wou, we aor· mo onto: 
Tertan # as sto. 206 debe badtnoro cmad bad faataetod Sania 
moqn fadd baa ,xomatess tedtonn wort horiaoes, amet hed 00 + a 











































J ee i's 
he ep Rar haat Apap feet 
Ablow me Lb nA Daca pes oy aH shar 

Vi A i. 





aseertaining the errer plaintiff immediately informed defe: dant 
thereef end charged his seccunt with the amount of 195. Letters 
sent to deferdant explaining thie wistake in the socount were of- 
fered in evidence, but, upon objection ma@e by defendant, were 
excluded wren the theory that “everything previous te that contract 
ie merged in the contract." ‘he trial Judge stated he thought that 
the rule would be 4ifferert if the accourt hed been runcing inde+ 
pendent of same particular contract. 

We think the court erred in exeluding this evidence. It 
is elementary, of couree, that the burden ef proving payment was 
upon defendant roo pleaded it. fo this point pleaintiff elites 
2.5 342 LL. App. 378, and Greemn 


Bros, BSc. So. v, Nelson, 191 Ili. App. 494, whieh sustain it. 
it wae proper for plaintiff te shew by paral evidence that 





in the settlenent of ite aeccunts with defendant an item had been 
enitte? by inadvertenes or mistake, aven though the settlesent 
wan evidenced by a written agreesent. Buck vy, Julia, 68 311. App. 
134. [t is true, aa defendant pointe out, tat ia the last named 
Gase the fudguent for defendant was affirmed, but tae evidence 
thare had been adaltted and tae issue found for defendant. Here, 
the evidenoe wae excluded, and thie was errer. it was adwiasibdle 
for two reasons, first, fox the purpose of showing the actual ¢con- 
eideraution for the eunditional contract, amd sovond, in order to 
show the mistake in computation upon the settlement ef the secounts 
between the parties, As a matter of fact, the written docunent 


fees not acknowledge the reeeipt of the $1145 or any ether sum. 


Vor the errer in suetsixning the sbjectien te this evidence 
the judgeent is reversed and the eause remanded for another trial, 


REVERSED AND RekANDED. 
Resurely, 7. J., and O'Conner, J., concur, 








 daubae'tes bewtstal yfedethount Yidntate cette att ‘nmiatatesoas ' 
distsec 80d To tacos ode Hat someone , — — — — — — Baw’ Vereen 
Ng eo Yotesod G8? AL whedade whet yabate gee davies teh Or Hate 
e10e ,suabiw'leh Ut When aeltoete mega’, tit ,ssnebive at Set 
feattver fess of ovalverg galiryreve" teat pros! et weed Deneteme 
tacit sige? od eters ephwt Leisé ost “ toastae eet at bey eee eh 
— gather anes baal tmvonse OAS Th duace TIS of BiWew etn ott 
steanteds “da obitieg ened — 
* opaobive abst Aue dese at towne tires baad ar aw 
sist hihi mse i'll i tidaladall — 
acdle Tikisiely Seley eu of FE — * — * —E& — 
 fubead, be e8té suk weldieaieged geet . 
‘ at sisrave sodeiv —* canal vant ARE eg et 












taeae L908 odd Mguedt seve jodedale ce sone! tt 
aah An 8D esha atts — — bal * To 


efdieetnhe saw 2% eee | onabive t 
‘naan auton wad gutvaie Ye sroccig bt 5 
* mba wh , nue —— —— ad wt ill 





36457 


LOUISE SMAHINIEN, / vi 
Appellee, — APPRA. FROM CIRCUIT GoURT 
v8. | O¥ COOK COUNTY. 
JOH SUAHIKIGE , —* 
Appel Laat; 





JOHN SHAHIKIEA, 
Appellant, 


vs. 


THER PEOPLE OF THE STATA OF ILLLEOLG, 


Appellee, 27 9 1 A. 6 1 Qt 


BAR, JUSTICE MATCHETT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


— — —— — — 





this is an appeul by the reepondent, cohn Gheahicien, from 
an erder entered (alter hearing upon a rule to show enuse) finding 
that reepondent aad failed to make sufficient anawer te the peti- 
tien, adjudging that he was in contempt fer wilful feilure te 
comply with the order ef the court theretolfore entered on August 
26, 1932, and ord*ring tuat he be committed to the comson jail ef 
Geek county fer a peried not te exeted gix months until he sheuld 
purge himself of the contempt by compliance with the order er unBil 
released by due precess of law, 

It is eontended in behalf of respondent that his failure te 
comply with the order of the court was sot wilful, and it wes 
therefore error te commit hia to jail for contempt; further that 
the commitment is in violation of section 12 off article 2 of the 
Constitution of the State; that there is no evidence to sustain the 
commitment order; that respondent did net receive a fair and ime 
‘partial hearing, and that the court erred in denying his metien fer 
leave to file his sworn anewer te the rule te show cause, 

A recitation of the facts as diselooed by the record will 
clarify. On April 15, 1932, complainant, Loulee Uhahinien, filed 


her bili in equity in the Cireuit court against the respondent, 


TAUOD TIVCATO woe Ryrcere 
eR MUON A608 GO 


4 





Aouau * amare art * aon = 


ers hel ONS a 





er. Wo kadar ai -uobnegers oa eo — a pas co Py: 

antnalt (anime vada of fm a magn qatsene sores) Beresaa tehro a 

_ nhtes outs co yra⸗ tam to Pte exe of betiar bes —* —— ie a 
at ——— —— 10% aroa aes abe ant 4 “i saul + aa nb 7 the ; 















to Stat avorass ait 59 ad om Sac pay 
ating ul ips: Btn x $ *) si 


bisete oe Lhe ms aiid an nie besoxe * tou ——— * tat ewe 4000 
theo x0 ‘ebro outt attw one higaoe wi sua tnae * * towns ° v0 a 


ot oruttey ‘id tas enbsogeot x0 Rhasded ne tebne aap ab ag 


my Weg ee — J— 


fem 92 haw sturtin tou caw s1w00 aid to unbx0 old athe ane 
— De J 


tact x — — rot t that bed ab thane hed ¢ aovse exo * 





ade ‘alasoue of eouebhlve om at orodt ‘ted eter eat * aoituehs 13 , 
omk bows that a avioges ven bib tnobaoqest —2— ——— — et 
xo aokdom aii aaiyaed al horxe $1yoo od? ted? bam ygabsood Jadteag 
.otuao wore 6F @L0t Oy Ox Howene atowe wad ort 9° rave 

KLiw frooor oad od Benotodth aa Bison? ong to moltattoew A 
boLkh , me datsins eeduod tmaates —* a nee: * — n 











averring that beth had been residents of Lliinois for sore than 
two yeara; that they were married in Chicago Septonber 6, 1930, 
separated December 29, 1931; that subsequent to the marriage 
regpendent began a course of eruel and inhuman treatment toward 
Complainant, beating her on many occasions, and using vile and 
abusive language toward her; that at particular times and places 
named he struck her with his fist and Deceshber 29, 1941, ordered 
her from the heuse; that he afterward filed a bili fer divorce 
againet her which was dismissed for want of equity. The bill 
averred that the respondent was an able-bedied man, the owner of a 
grocery store and anply able to supvert her, but that ne left her 
4estitute, and prayed that he might be required to make proper and 
euitable provision for separate maintenance, This bill was verified. 

May 12th thereafter complainant filed a setition for alimeny 
ana solicitors’ fees, setting up substantially the same faets as 
elleged in her bill, and this petition was also verified, 

On the same day, May 12th, respondent filed an answer te 
the petition for aliseny in which he sdwitted that he had therete- 
fore filed a suit fer divoree againet complainant in the Superior 
eourt of Ceok county en or about January 10, 1932; that » ending 
hesring thereof an order wau entered slliewing complainant $16 a 
week a8 tenporary alimony; and averred that after a partial hearing 
ef the cause in the Superior courten April 6, 1932, the cause was 
dimsissed without prejudice, Respondent denied that he was in ree 
esint of a good income; averred that he wae working for his father 
in & grocery store and received no wages or remuneration exeept 
his room and board, and that owing to existing financial conditions 
his father was unable to pay him any wages, and denied that come 
Pisinant was destitute, He averred that complainant Left him with- 


out reasen or ‘ust cause shout December 22, 1931; that there were 


mo children bom of said marriage; that comolainant left him without 


_ moat econ aet skemliis To atuobtems ased heat ed sagt galerova 
— 12 xndoodase ogao iad tak peter oxew oe tastt ie teey ont 





agahvrem watt st daoupesdwe, Paine deed * ———— oe aregos 
brewed dnowtaoxe wants sek fp mass igwxo te estes @ surged taskacqaes 
hes eilv autex bes ,amolencoe nes ao ted aclsend o Fria 44 nal 
 peentg has somt? aniualéted te genie ;tem Saswos ———— 
berebto en rodmese® das telt stat ad der cent Mownye oa bom — 
as rov th “et ad be Li btpwied te. off tot — ome om soit 
“EEhd adtt  opthupe te) tase ze% hosekaalh sar sip batw weal te ene 











& te cone nied 2 Mansa Ao shet~0h4e.. a, ony, taahaogees 9 


wxoukin wt seiiives # bese tacabe temo xottworeidt eat wat — ase 
as Bout oxwe wet Gileitansedue ee uateton — ‘axettokios brn _ 

sborebtey outa aw aolttioy abit srw /£ttd — * te 
“gF Theat oe ‘poser sas hnogast Weiss ‘cent teh suse ene Be shes 

<etesend bast vat sat ettiane ‘oat As acin seh week Le tot motesiog eat 
 tekeequts eat nt Stucke temo fenlaue oororis tet Alne & hoktt ci 
galbesg sade i8EOL OL Ytamaat trode wo So ytawes. dead — 
— —E Bnet vcc Ls ———— naw Tt eae —R aaia⸗· 
guinced Latonog a xeo%e Sertt heviova dow Peromd te 











— ra 


wi aime wnt 8806 3 Lama aetxWoo celsoque ads an —2 — 





—E — 28 — — — tuede eaune » teu — — Mics 
—E * ‘Fel shatke lores vans figaheten blew we mies erat | 








eause oF provoestion on at least five times prier to their final 
separation December 22, 1931; that complainant was a woman of vio- 
lent temper and on divers ececasions attacked him with knives and 
other instruments, calling him vile names and cursing him in the 
presence of customere; that ehe wae Living separate and apart from 
him without reasonable or just cause and wae not entitled te sepa- 
rate maintenanee from him, 

After hearing the evidenee on the petition the court on 
May 12, 1932, entered an order diracting that reeapondent pay 310 a 
week to complsinant as texporary alimeny, the first payment te be 
due Hay 14, 1932, until further order of the court, and that he 
should pay to her $50 soliciter's fees, payable $25 in thirty days 
and $25 in elxty days from the date of the order, 

Bay 23, 1932, respondent anewered the bil) of complaint 
setting up fects substantially the seme as heretofore alleged with 
reference te hie financial condition and as to the conduct of the 
parties toward each other, The same day respondent filed a petition 
te vaeate the order for temporary aliceny theretofore entered, and 
May 29, 1932, the court, after hearing the evidence in suppert ef 
this petition, ordered that the order for slimeny of Bay 5, 1932, 
should be modified to the extent of making the amount of payment 26 
& Week, the first payment to be due Key 12, 1952, 

June 1, 1932, respendent filed a cross-bili against complaingnt 
in which he averred that he had at all times treated her with kindness 
and coneideration, but that she had been guilty of extreme and repeated 
eruelty teovard him; that en Getober 7, 1950, she struck him in the 
nose with a heavy instrument, causing hemorrhage, on June 3, 1930, 
again struck Khim and attacked Kim with a knife, on December 22, 1931, 
again struck him in the nose causing bleeding, and in June, 1931, 
wilfully end maliciously attempted to take hie life by stabbing. The 
eroes-bill prayed fer divorce and ether relief, It was duly verified, 





fant? kot ot —— woutt avit gaand de ae bddan dred ‘de Wiiiie 
woty te nemew # Baw fnamie Lemos jane: j ERE +t dedaibed ‘noi —E 
bie eaviny 3 be wb of bekoadss naoleenon wievee ae bas rogues diet 
ost au aah sf gah ate hae nena wtie ake gaiiivs etosmuttead me 
moet jam paw siwraave warvnt sav asin toned evaietade 46 dau | 
*gen OF bese 1.a0 ten nee bie paueo text 19 sidanemnet ‘swodidiw ‘dina 
vith ise"? connnesutem ‘oie 
e —— net Seas * 0g ont 0 sonsbive ost gabtned rag — 

@ O48 Yaq tasbasqaot tect walsoorts rote ae bowdae lever’ (8 yom 
| : ot of émeayaq seul eng «Torok cuetogsy pa tinata: _ ‘ Swe 
| of tant ba twos old te webx0 ‘todgawh Lita Sher i 
: “ayes went nt ase oldayng eset exertotton Ody teil of Qe 

— —R oud ‘to adab ond not exeb yixte —— 
tila tano⸗ xe Lite sais boremas ‘tnabasgeet eee ae nv * 
















tte bene ite etotodored as oune omg — — ah 
‘add ‘to foubaoo ont ot en bas Mats sba0e selomsree’ : 
—— * —J taabaeceet ech ‘empe ont ' westv 0 dows brewed wotean 
ha shexedas ererosexess (oud ba (tereqen tot sobre edd obeed¥ 
te Mooque at sone tee saa gatrsed ——— xtuss ane ater alee 
860 8 all te eon! Le ‘ot reine oad tads bomb Smondae joq stds 
a davaryag te Javone ois gabian 2 — wid os okt thes od biworie 
RB OL SE wait ou od of teomeen fount ‘odd teow 
— npathe tgn00 tantaye L£bdaaeons * —— trbacgset Beek 4 ee a —— 
awsh ada —J 198 bpanors eomts iia te had ox tadt borers, “od ne mt 
botasqes has onorixe * ee Lig awed boit outa ‘test sud aglte seek —E "bite 
ult ab abil fowxte ode ,O8Gr A rodotoo ae 0 dead Ala braced <eibirne 
08 04 * ovt to voyoutts ome pateuns ¢ 30 thend yvaod a dttw bwon 
ee 8 Wino 99 “0 WUsk a ghe abd hesousse ‘ban mb Xousde 
i ea oat nd * vamiboatd y aaisueo eon ont mk : : 


i — — — 
































a ——— J se! 
* —— 4 t ont ond * — wages ao yLints 





Complainant was given seven days to anewer, 

| August 10, 1932, complainant flled her petition setting up 
the entry of the order of May 29, 1932, requiring respondent to pay 
$6 a week for her support; and averring that respondent had wilfully 
refused to comply with the order and wae then in arrears $42 for 
alimeny and $25 for selicitor's fees, She prayed fer a rule on him 
to show cause. The petition was duly verified, 

On the same day, August 10th, an order was entered requiring 
respondent to appear August 16, 1932, and show goed cause, if any, 
why he should not be punished for failure to éomply with the order 
theretofore extered, Auguet 16th the rule was continued until 
August @3rd, and on Auguet 23rd again continued until August 24th, 

August 24th the court entered an order directing that ree- 
pondent pay complainant on or belore Auguet 26, 1932, a substantial 
payment on the amount of the arrears in temporary alimony, and that 
he appear in person on Auguet 26, 1952, before the court, and make 
payment to complainant; that upon hie failure to make payment on 
that date he sheuld be committed to the county jail for ecentempt of 
court for failure to comply with the order for temporary alimony, 

It appears from the order entered Auguet 26th that due 
notice and copy of petition fer rule te show cause was duly served 
upon respondent, and that he appeared persenally in epen court and 
answered the rule orally. The certificate of evidence discloses 
that on August 26th the soileiter fer respondent asked leave to 
file an anewer, ond that this petition was not granted by the court. 
The court thereupon interrogated complainant, whe in response to 
questions said she was not employed, and that she lived with her mother, 

Respondent wae duly ewern in his own behalf, He testified 
that he was 25 years old, came te this country in 1924, left school 
in 1930, wae married September 6, 1930; that he hus had ne money or 


income since December, 1931; that he had been living with hie father 


* 


SRA od ay! mOVOR cOTeE aa Combe dqned 
au wattsee pbs ba coal HOLY Saciatenep RL OL Memgwa 6 yw 
weq of tuehiownes guixtupen CL , CS yak —— 

Vivtiiv hes Isehagqaet deed yaltiowa boa jdueqque ted 39} deow a. 88 
Met 266 exsotts of node sam due tebe gat die Yhaas of henwhen 
at i Set a Tat hoysrg oHB 290% 0 ‘sottotfon tot 0Rh bua: om Las 
| hoi'tixney yish aew meld bteg adt cen mean ap 

gaked spot ores ia oew tobre we ,A90L sauguh ~web eoee ett oO. 

wae Th ,pauwe boop weg ban ,SECL aL decymd maqam, od dam * ioe 
| ⁊ob ao ost agin viguos od esmtiet 10% besatang 08 ——— 
Lhd aw beunt supe Sew aiwt ae2 c30L tawyud . heredae, oxe 
-dds8 Sangua Litay bowalenes alege &sb8 feeges mo bas bu deny 
«09% Saay gaitoextp seb29 as hosed dxmeoestt Ag06 — a Deate: 
Ealinndaduy @ S80L, ,d8, seuguh oFe%ed Ke ao sannkas wou. 
seut baw ,ynomkia yteroqued mk grantia a9 to, tawane ane no, tam 
eden hac ,stu99 edt ototed .8h0L , ok TaxguA oo aeeteq ad, — 
had tnsayed gins of oxwiiel gic weg taut sIawnde Iqnoo ot, He Aa. 
To fqundnos 16% List, ytauoo anf of ANgPLameD ed. bwode Moh * 
aoet la Ytnroqaed to mobre ade itv taand of, oun ta: 29°, dxwoo 
ub asals AIOE Jed botetas tanto ert poet eres ABs sive: ate 
beriee Vinh sow seuso woe oF OLu TOT nats biog. te. ver — no re RI OM. 
ban duos mage ah yiLeaoateg hetasqae af ted han , took one Ta : J 
peak asaqloelh ermbive to ataettivawe amt ,Qiiexe odor nel | eo" owna 
: : od svert beipa saobaoqeey 20% tot todiog eat A208 tewnmh wd * 
i a taupe add yd Redaaty fon sew soltizeg ald? sade dns, r9 mAs 












































of Sanouset at adv ,tannka tence beteportesad nequenasy: — 
|, eaten es Aghw Bevis oda tat baw ,hoyoten tom, — aye a —* 
—2 o .Thasiod awe aid mh axowa yhuh aw — 









“aaa ata 4 sat guilt send nad, ai a 180 * *— aoc eaehe 





at 1032 Grace street;that the grocery store was bought in April, 
1931, by hie father, He further testified, "The daily receipts in 
thet store are about $19 per day, expenses $5 or $6, profits en $19 
are $5 a day. Ye wre selling canned goods and fruits there, I have 
net paid my father any board; I am just working there, all I am 
paying is my room and board. I have not drawn any money out of that 
business, I have had no money in the last six months.” HKeepondent 
said that he had looked Tor other work at chain stores and that all 
he could do was to work in a grocery; that since suit had been 
started he had not paid any money to his wife; that he 414 not 

know of any money that had been paid te her exeept through hie at- 
torney; that he had not scald hie attorney any money, and that he 
wae wiliing te pay whatever the court ordered him to pay as soon as 
he was in a position ta do se. 

Om eroes-examination respondent said that he was net work- 
ing in the store eat the time he was married; tliat he went te work 
there in April; that be had not given up his other job but had been 
discharged; that this store was opened after he was married. He 
admitted that when the stere had been burglarized a few months bee 
fore the trial he wade an affidavit te the effect that he was the 
owner of the store, When asked, "Did you make a sworn statement 
with zome insurance company in the loop, that you were the owner of 
that store when you were colieeting for a burgliary?* he said, "Yee. * 
His seliciter then said, “Your Honor, this has all been gone ever 
before Judge Trude,” to whieh the solicitor for petitioner replied, 
"That is why he gave us sn order." In response to other questions 
respondent @sif that he epent shout eight houre in the stere each 
day, began te work about nine, somatines got up at seven; that he 
lived above the store and spent eight or nine hours a day there, 

The father of respondent testified that he owned the 


arocery store in question, whereupon solicitor for petitioner 


EY ote 





 fitgh al titysiod wav exede LrabeTy Ont Sunt ToOKTe Sout BBO te 
fh asqiaoes ghied off" ,hokRigasd aagsan? eo edit eid ‘we , Leek 
818 ao adtiterm .0¢ io 8S seeneae .yeb x99 CLe guode ova stutd tems 
ovsd 1. omens atin? bas hos tems gaittse ox 9 woah #28 ots 
oe 1 ile ,ovedd gohuxew taut ae T pheaed yan tedta wt bheg doi 
tadé %o tue yonen ym mweth ton ered I shteod bud moot: yar ak gnbyes wi 

dupbacgseH * wis moa win gael eds ab yous oa has ovat ‘_ jetontent 

, 4 teat bog seteda sleds se duew tedse tot kodood bust off toss bles 
mgod bad. tive gona dad? pytesety a 2 stow oF dew of bites oa 

ten 82) of tad yativ edd od yedom yew hing Son hed ad doduade 

ria Gt sguordt tqnene ror of Stag aand bid Gms Youce ‘aie "te amt 

eh dads bes \eanom ym yometza alt Biag dom hast et saat pyem 

aa mooe ws wou ot mid Recebee | ttwoo ont Roveterte YaR ob watccoe eae 

, ote ihe oe soisteoe @ a2 eae Git 

<inew fon aan ot — Slee theheequet mo hwelaaxs me Fog 
dnow of tuen ast amit: — ett et 
neod. hasi sud dot, aedto ela qu nevis fon hast od aa cee atieisde 
oh .helriog sev 9 TOdte bansqo NeW emote ict tulle pboiade 
<od fais wow wot a Soudtaigusd aved best exon ld nos tails Website 

odd, aaw od, tasit soo'tle et of tiveabl tke as shan ext dads? ond eter 
“dnom2 098 aous a oisn way S10" ,bostnn gaat erode one NO Teawe” 

Ty tomo ocd ore HOY tei quot ext at gaoanep senotivent eaoe site 

—— shiew eet. "tyne Lqund & tot galpeviies ee sey crest orota dant 

ave enon aegd Iie ean elit , roach welk* (bee mead rotteton oS 
sedigos tonotsiteg nok tottetion ede setae oF * bwet opbait stoted 


anoksenuy zeito af senequet al * Kebio He ae —— * sme ef gaat* 
panes? 

































ands ab a wiwed enim sé digle fosqe hae inte’ il — 
auld Damme ott taut Sok UEte0d sambnogestt Yo wilds wat” eae 
teael sited to? rothotion moquerosy Ae ie ele | 








objected, saying that the witneas was being told hew to answer 

the questions, and the court said: "All go back and sit down 
exeept the attorney. If the wituess doesn't understand the lan- 
guage we will try some other way." The witness, continuing in 
response to questions by respondent's attorney, eaid he had paid 
$650 for that stere, that it brought in $15, $16, 317 and $19 a 
day-- 919 on Saturdsy. He said that he did not give John (meaning 
respondent) any money; that he had not given him any, but that 
John lived with him; that he (witneas) paid the rent fer the store 
and the house which was 385 a month. 

The above is a rather full resume'of the evidence offered 
im response te the rule to show cause, The Chancellor heard and 
saw the witnesses, sand while we reeognize the rule invoked in 
behalf of respondent to the effeet thet the court should not 
punish for contempt unless disobediqmee is wilfui (0 ‘Callaghan 
Ye O'Callaghan, 69 111. SSL; Dinet v. People, 74 Iii. 183; Blake vy. 
People, 80 111., 11) we think thie record justifies the finding by 
the Chancellor that respendent's failure te eomply with the order 
of the court was intentional and wilful. It would appear that the 
question of mis interest in the store has been passed upen by two 
Chancellors whe have practically reached the same ecenelusien. If 
the failure of reepondent te comply with the order was wilful, as 
we hold it wae, there was, of course, neo vielation of his conetitue 
tional rights. 

There is alee no merit in the contention ef respondent that 
the commitment order is not sustained by the evidenee. it is true 
that respondent was adjudged in contempt on testimeny which was 
givam by himseif and Sis father wee testified in his benalf, He 
and hie father underteok te testify, and the court rightly, we think, 
found him guilty on evidence submitted in his own behalf. 


— — a woo bioa ealed eaw dani tw out adil gtiyes ,betoutda 
awa te hee seed ox heat “phhes dakeo a⸗ — | — — — oui J 
san out han sexo ban ¢'aaeob auoudiw odd XZ .qpatetia’ di 8 8 ’ 
at anisms) ses ssaeatiw oat *, ar xeilte omen uxt Shhw ow F — iy 
bieg hes ef ed bias — oarosan * suabuogees Ww ana ldeonp of i . * — 
J——— rst Shs 2a8 a dguond th tads ened badd 402 “ena 
granem) ato’ ovig fon bib et teilt bieo oh turag ang spat 
o tad tus «ae ‘mid movig ton bed ou tad vonoe ene 4 ‘ Mocoo- 
— oui ‘x08 sae ous 4 ‘en Sand pki athe savid® bis t 
asin OY ea tokite 6 sawod ait baw” 
boxe'rte soushive eid te ‘emweet Lit nontet « ah erode oar anid 
bm based Tostsousitd | oat — wows nid — ond tod ote aa 








































fon hava tote wat ts soe ba baw at 


eae peed 4 ee — ee — ao mel yee 043 
xd gatbal® ent wobtigeut | brovet Laced — * — — oe 2 iad 





ows we nau borsaq ased nest ot⸗ ai eer eh rer ag ta . | * 
es -nebewiouoe oats eals bosigast eilas lav⸗ia ovied oie eve — 

4 fut ibe sen a9bie eat dd tw vinaee ‘oe Jasbaoqaet Yd ‘city er 
owt ae whe —* ———— oft —J— his mene — *— * #1 Bied ow 


— —* 


Youd | 


saci — dasbascees to ndlsnedmes odd Ab sivem on cath UF peelt® 
ound ef 2% snompbive bai ya bondddaue You dt rétde”dadmd ds — 

— — — —— — wae} —E 

oll tLnsod ost ak bolitvaed ow voit¥nt eb bad Tindasige mvty 
tats ow yyldeghy ites off ban ,ytheass Os xbodtbdaw ‘weddet ake has 
‘Tinted two afi ak bedelndae sonebive ne amg? ana’ awe? , 

MSRUOTS Ge yoo deaHAs aE wMretal iit Soi * 


— 





It ie urged that respondent did net reeeive a fair and ime 
partial hearing; that the Chancellor from the beginning of the 
hearing was impatient and unfair; that he made sareseatic and cone 
temptucus remarke concerning respondent sand was disinclined te hear 
evidence on the part of respondent. it is true that the Chancellor 
expressed his opinion quite freely with reference te the eonduct of 
respondent, but the cause was not being heard by a jury, and we 
are inclined to the opinion that the Chancellor in hie remarks 
merely expressed what any juet judge would have thought. RKespond- 
ent, in our opinion, weil deserved te have said the things *hich 
were said te hin, 

It is ingwisted that the court erred in denying respondent 
‘the right to file his swern answer te the rule to shew cause. The 
rule had expired, and although reeseondent had been personally pres- 
ent on several occasions with his sounsel he had not apparently 
theughtit worth while toe file his answer until after the hearing 
had been begun. ie time nad expired by reason cf hie ewn wilful 
negiigence, and any leave to file when apslication was made would 
have been by grace rather than by right. Noewever, the court heard 
him and hie witnesses testify in open ceurt, and as already stated, 
it would seem that two Chaticellers have already gone over substan- 
tially the same ground with substantially the same result. 

The order entered is, in the opinion eof this court, a just 
and righteous one snd it is affirmed, 

AFF IREED, 


MeGurely, >. J., and O'Connor, J., concur, 








ef? Yo gadiatged eat wort ————— $a? Sait aa * : 


enco Btn oftunbtes shax ef tans reer baw igre! oor i ‘Att as F | 








te besos end 62 donsae tes aelw YLowst bb Lip sable ase we ier 2 
oe bins edit! a ye pened Gated Gon wie siishe: nd’ bed bobbhegnes 
‘tenet alk at toltooned® ont shut welarge ent 63 Sind toad oa 
abuoqesll © [edges vai bitow tghet taut Yin dal peduorech’ QHIRL 








“Meade egikds @3 biae ovat Be kovadesk iiew io haten a5 ‘ak te 


i yy Pe 






watt of bien 


erent es ee ae eT bodatnad or 02 


enth®* dante easta deter ane 88 — wink kde! out Pi diighs — 
eoexg CLidnesieg ased bed Snebacoees dywoddia ban’ — ont of 





yliadteqdcs Fou bed od tesauoo oii wale aaeteds 
gubteod ead setts tdas seweae old oErt ot 6 






KWLLIW aw) whe To aosaed ed -borkaed bad ants a Bigs gs ‘bad 


Ptasd Cine oat 8 abet — — ‘died 4 


bated Ybseiie aa ban , Peo aege al yYtitesd ‘Wsowontie wie’ * ua — 


o,—— dant 1 tuew 
“ye evaer omeed orld vite ttnaeedan: dd tw ‘Bewots owe ‘oul | i ; 

eo BH \Owoo wide to aetatge ede vik jel pevedin ‘teba8 sar” ak — 

ape ad | shone Ths ef 94 Bee sae ue sdugyte‘beia 

TRAIL RUA GENS iy | 


’ ae Es At 
Bsa Re i RM RU Oe Rey 










8 ERR 


ae sie bein mane 
——— ot — — * * hips & 


cba wa dete ew: ae 


Died gates ah ba Seah “get! wth 


ELM Bo Verseney ‘wae a ta bes 


Wa” Qe SEG He Hn 7 ct, min — 9 





HEAMAK RIEGER, 
Sefendant in Brvrer, 





VR. 


) 

) 

} ef Chi cage. 
DOBALD 8, —X i 


BRGRLAART, 
ENGELHART, CARLTON ENOML TART 


and GLADYS SOGRLAART, 
Plaintiffs in *rrer. 


270 I.A. 620' 


MA, JUSTICH MATCHYTT DELIVERED THE OFPTeLON OF THE COURT, 


Plaintiff in the owner and helder of «a aote 6? the pringipal 
gum ef 97,000. The note wae mede by Ceoilia &, Ahern end Joseph 
A. Ahern Auguet 95, 1995, «nd ie by lite texme payable to boarer 
and due one year after date. The note atates upen ite faucet that 
it 4@ seeured by wa trust deed of even date, 

Pinaintifty filed a statement of claim vaicgh set up the exe= 
eution and delivery of this note aid & wonerendam of agreenent made 
August #7, 1930, between Forensn-State Trust & sewinge Bank, the 
then owner, ond defendants, “hereby the time of payment of the 
mote wae extented for 2 term of one year, the statement averred 
that paysent bed beer deeemded and refused m4 that there wae due 
te oleintiff from 4efendonte for prinsigai and interest $7227.50, 

An affidavit was attached te the statement of claim to 
the effeet that the sult was for recovery of money onhy; that the 
demand was for money due apon thia promissery note and the agree- 
ment for extension thereof az set forth in the claim, ond that 
after allowing sll Just credits, deductions and set-offs the sum of 
$9927.80 wae due, 

Defendants appesred and made w motion te strike the atate- 
ment of claim, “hich was overruled, Defendante then filed em affi- 
davit of merite,which was strieren, YTney thereafter made a motion 
to strike that sart of the statenent of claim in which plaintiff 
Sought to charge defendaste with liability fer $7,000, This motion 





“0 So ch I 0 on “ae ee TEES Oe ye : 

2 A eee, baat agawi 

29499 ME NO NORIO SRF COMEVLIRE vynnſran SNEUE 

Legbiatsg add’ to eden eto Sh tom Sim THawe' watt’ ab Veevataee — 

Hqoees Orb weeith 18 RALbOod Yt Adak Haw oFO0 wet’ “GOODE ted tre, 

qeraed of oldeyeq waxat 232 qf ab baw ESer ae panic vied ve J 

ath neq Rotate ofon eat .ondh Tete ahoy ob ob haw 

Set ne  ehdh ahve Me hewh toetd: ate —— Pa 

a Gir Pon Me Rive thes” ha” deat k Bette wieniawe — 

shan Snbotgh 10 miblntienh Whee baoit Hat i beh tne wendie 

“HR? (hed agatwe & tour? ofedeaacstst owt 

‘pdt lo dimyes te wally odF Yowwad? jet om X 

“bestows datuesade Ber  V4eby bad to re one seen ts iy 

| *gbb anw eae? send Bo gevwter’ pie be rade : 

* —J— teonbiud bow Yayisatye Yor & 
| pf mba Yo dackelede ed¥ of béanedi * 

exd tad jyLn0 yoaen to yxavoces vol aa FANE Hit Vaid Pootty of 

““Lebiga’ oiit bad oSon ytbebinbdt bAMd Woe ot canoe Te) eae Senet 

text bre yutets ot ad siztet Fou be Souter oh 

‘Yo mie ot eMo~teo baw sav! toxbos — fest ffs aniworte * ray 


J— 
































—E Maids at al te dnmoetete ont te * rial 
notion eink 000,16 aok qeatidnts detw atcatae Yeh —X 


wan denied, Theresfter an amended affidavit of merite was inter- 
posed, waleh upen motion of plaintiif was stricken, Defendants 
electing to abide by their afiidavit of merite, taeir default ras 
taken, wid the court after hearing the evidence found for plaintiff 
and aseensed damages at $7770.59, being the emount of the pringipal 
note and ecupen, with interest tuerecen. thie judgment we are asked 
to reverse, 

The pleadings adeit thet en Auguet £7, 1936, the Yoremane 
State Trust & Savings Sank, then the owner ef the principal mete, 
entered inte a written memorandum of agreement with defendants for 
the extension ef the payment of the Kote, and that oat that time they 
executed two interest notes or coupons fer the eum of $227,.% each, 
evidencing the interest which would theresiter acerue upon the note 
fer the extended period. Berendante admit their liability upon the 
exteneion interest coupons dated auguat 27, 1930, Tor $227.8 each, 
but deny that under the terms of the extension agreement they ore 
ebligated te pay the principal indebtedness « aid that is the cone 
treliing question fer censideration in te came, We regret the 
necensity of cansidering the question without amy brief presented 
im behalf of plaintiff, 

Defendants, aialysing the written memerendum for extension, 
say: “Thies is not an absolute but = conditional or defeasible ex- 
tension for one year, The extension is given eabjeet te twe eondi- 
tions, - firet, prompt payment of interest, ond second, the keeping 
and performing of the ¢ovenants and sagreamonts centained in tne 
prineipal note and trust deed. These conditions are conditions 
@ubsequent,. the failure of the defendants, within the extension 
year to prouptly pay interest or to perform the covenants ond 
agreements of the note er trust deed, would defeat and determine 


the extension before the termination of the year, liewhere in this 








— am aoe aginna re tivabsvts ‘emda viet peer er on 
psnaba i550 ane ‘Wehaade se ‘he mood deon steep * boB oq 
aw —ERX —* seo beom to Pevebs Che e — obi Si 
tibdniesa te} Savet pouebive acid gabteed tof bs aw i ; 
ksqdaniag ont ‘tn gameen ae gated 8. PNG ve — — 
tetes etx ov daonahet eknl temas ica as set ber — snd * 












_ Sart Be Uhh , FE Tees mo saad ticks — ont 
toa Jaqtont rg ot Yo nese O62 and yaw ayatead & tach, wage 
B0% etanhon ob eke taymeetge To mubaevameR patie a ovat pe ¥ ae 4 
West naks duct 40 tae han .etan oad Se dememyag ald Rw a 


Ech c SME ae he ae 
‘ TSR Re sais ald 10% anaquen Ie eoten seotod ek ow baba > 
one. anes — E wheat “state ataonae tea — bebands * ae 


some on. FRag soe 19694 2 PS ; me ontab » 






















“nim war * fans fas, - “anoabesdenas 3 dnqacaley 
ome forget o8 .aaum Ba oh wo srarehs sees x0 Nees. tsaup gold 
botacaers Wied yae sues be aet aaan⸗ ott nattxoga aston | ea: 





Hie MS ee OR EO Ef ae Sa — — 


oivastas a6 mvbna sons wags bew ons gada gto kamine te 
“48 idiasoton to Lanott tage a dud — a ton ok oe *  pyee 
| Ad⸗e· hea’ * xo bau⸗ —3 24 Koimmedae om? uox⸗ 





LS Se ee ae 


le ennai steers dh eicuilaennetiidh — 3 


% 


paragraph is there «ny acsumption or agreement by the defendants 
to pay the Ahern note.” Defendants cite & Page on Contracts, 
see, 2576, where that author pointe out tas Wuslitian #hich dise 
tinguish ao condition from a covenant, but fail to elite section 
26790 by the same author, which states: 

"“fhether a provision ia a cendition or a sovesant depends 
upon the detention eof the parties an dwduced Frew the language of 
the contract when read in tie light of the surrounding circume 
etenees.” 

& Geneideration oF thie manoraidwa ef agreement in ite 
entirety Leaves ae doubt in our minds ev te the intention of these 
perties, In the first paragrayh it neues the Back as party of the 
Fivet part and defecdwits as parties of the segonmd part. In the 
Second paragraph it reeltes thet the purty of the first part is 
the legal ovner and holder of the note, dereribing it and the 
property conveyed te secure its payment, in the next paragreph 
at Freciics that “sald seecnd portics dusire tc have the payment 
of Seven Theuscid Dellers ef said note oxtended for one year from 
Augnet 25, 1930, te consideration of the agreement hereinafter 
wede on their part." In the felicving peregraph the Penk agrees 
(the note agnin deseribed) to extend the time of payment of the 
note for one year “so long as the eaid parties of the second part 
shall promptly pay interest * * * at the rate ef 6+ per cent per 








In the next paragraph the parties of the sacond part, i. «., defend- 
ants, agreed to accept "said extension upon the conditions afere- 
said * * * and further agree that all ef the agreements, stipula- 
tions, powers and covenante in said principal note and trust deed 
Mentioned shell etand and remain unchanged and in full foree and 
effect for said extended peried and any subsequent extension 


thereef, except only, ste., * * * or in the event of the failure 






moines sete od Atak tut — a mont —— 


— D— — 

——— — ven 8 % mote thace « ef seta, rose 233 

— —— pres 
—— grlonsotkws oot le deg tk ont al beet sede fog 


— 


wh ab daeapiege 26 aeprigeen wht Yo ‘wettexubNeaed A a 
eapid to sebeavdut ws) of ae abate ten mk Bevan od Geese tye 
ans Ww sghreag Gx Soe bets eran WS algun sith Wale bite 

a ee ee ee esha ha Pa * 
ei funy Pe ttl edt Ye Wiehe way dedd sertody UY Meek giA « 
ett bas th pakdisweety seen ste ae bu tom ih wt 
a 
bemengey, atid ovodi of ortook eeteay seeiy tie” Be ET 
sor Hey one Tot tahsivas etom bias Ie wretlot hamnwedt xoves IO 

| gee tentowd Mmeemotge edt te usiterssiease at Seer iat’ ae 

enone sek odd dyarpoteg geivor te? aay at * tent * sa 

ede Xo dnemysg To emis edt Babsew os (editions atnge eden ane) 
stag baooes oct Ye aettmag blew ext ve gaot~ad® — 4 fot 

_ 3eq desu tog 48 ke eeu edt ba @ — D—— — 































| abated 4.0 42 gfe bnovea sat —O0o————— 
\. — ————— — —⏑ —⏑⏑⏑⏑———— 
J Atosues  ttremerge eG Te Lin cadld serge Teh hae om ate 
£00k dautt bus ston deylomitg — at eduaceven an wrenag enslt 
hae 29502 Lhe) af Pas Degandeny mhanme hme bree Kear Renee sce 
———— Srogpendae Yue fam hokwoe habsorae bine * Y — — 









“6 


to pay either or any of said interest notes at the time and place, 
when and where, the same respectively become due, or to keep, ful- 
Sovenents and agreements con- 


Seined in sald trust deed, then the whole of said principal sum 
shali, at the eleetion of the lege) holder of said promissory note, 





become at once without metice due ond paysble ond may be colleeted, 
tegether with all accrued interest thereon, in the same manner as 
if said extension or extensions kad not been granted, **®* and the 
undersigned until the payment of said mortgage do hereby waive and 
release all dower and homestead rights in and te said real estate 
under and by virtue of the lave of the Otete of LiLincia.” The 
instrument is executed by ali the oarties under seal. 

The agreement provides, in substance, a6 we construe it, 
that defendante ore te keep ali the agreements and sovenants con- 
tained in the note and truet dead and defendente agree te and ae- 
eept the extensien “upon the conditions” named. Ewen if the word 
*“sonditions" sheuld be construed to have the technical meaning 
given te that werd in the develogment of the feudal law, these 
would be construe’ ea condiiiona precestent rather than as condie 
tions subsequent as defendants contend, but when we eoneider the 
subject matter of this mesorandum, the circumstonces reoited and the 
language of the whole agreesent, it ia apparent, we think, and must 
be held that the conditions were in the thoughts of the parties 
covenants which they agreed to perform. One ef these conditions or 
eovensnts was to pay the principal nete, aid te that obligation we 
canmnet entertain «a doubt, defendants bound themselves, 

Defendants have cited a large number of cases such as 

ih & igliing > Gk : iara, 73 111. Apo. 691; Newell 
x. Wheeler, 27 i. ¥. Guper, Gt. (4 Keb.) 247; Sale vy. Finch, 104 


U. &. S62; Semi tary District of Chicago v. Chicage Title and Trust 





ne, ee ale 








aa? fas fetives omsoesoawos te em} ,awhse temp ada te anny 


' een bas ombs om $a wed on deere tad haa te ye to “node te aid “6F 
— om eaosed nel fosanen ond * — ban nd 
santa —— bion ‘te — odd mudd book doi 
ton Yrovetmors Liwe te wshiow Lage ‘oad We —** it ‘da thea 
detention at wm be edateryoe has web eotdem @undhiw pene da vi om 
ox comes omar ould ni yaoorest teoretal towtvon Lis ati taiiee 














hus eviaw ydesoul ob eee ee, —— pay yeaa be abau 
piatue foot bias of bas al wtipls Seatesaod kaw sowed, te 
‘eet “.eostisk to ease oss Yo wend ont to ontuty. ys hae wabag 
.ieee ohaw saleaag a) Lio yo potuyene.sf soeauntamh 

ti sundance oF ao ,venatedve ai ,aehlverg tapmeenye BAF 
“neo etens Ton bus ataomexpe out Lie goed at eta — “ 
“on fie oF onsys Stashueteh han boob towns vm ton. we, ob, est 
beow ef Ut wovd .beeme “arnold Lomo ede anue" me: 


















easit — dabuet of3 ta as mo ſavsh ame ai bie Sadt * nov 
«ifnee an nead tediet sapdesotq evolshbuoy aa besmien 
ed? whieuos ow aedw jud ,buedaes —E Wh wa Riss 














fewm Aam ,doksdid ov ,tamregye af ah Jenemetpe sLote amt 2e epany ae 
aelsuay ods ‘Le eddtyuods eff ab axow eands tions ost deat Bonk 99 

2 WHOL? idaww oueds Ie en0 <etolieg ef daasge yor? soddw sfaeneves 
we matiepiide gadi es bis ,o¢en Laylevitg Ott yoq of Baw RomAEYe 
.w3vicameds haved atashun teh dweb « mhasxesan ve 

be dome eoens Lo Tedeun aynad # hetle eved agaakae tee — 

a a 7898 a BY V——— 
o e ron (cow eau —VV— 

—28 











Ge., 278 111. 529. it would serve no useful purpose te review and 
distinguish these cases where the subject matter, the languege of 
the agreement and the manifest intention ef the parties were quite 
ai fferent from those appearing im this reeord, mor are cases such 


isiper, 265 111. App. 226, whieh defendante cite, 






Defendants aleo contend that the statenent of claim is 
insufficient to charge them on their nete, Ye held it was suffie 
cient under section 40 of the Municipal Court aet ( ind theilurd 
11. Rev. Stat., chap. 37, par. 395, see, 40, yp. 953.) 

Vor the reagonea indicated the judgment of the trial court 
ie affirmed. 

APVIRRUD, 


MeGurely, ?. J., and O'Connor, J., coneur, 


‘ ae Oa, 
wf RS 


} 
—*— alt 
9 Rone Bais 


gh eS 24 
i" 4 ey 89 — tee oe 


q —* 
SS 


* 
ran 
ep site wel ert 


. re. eee 
46 
peda e’s end ane * 





fe f aN 
36330 f ae J | 


P, M, SHITHA, 
Defendant in Error, | — 
ERROR WIGIP 


“OF CHICAgo.! 





va. 





LOUIS HEYDEN, MHS. MK. ARNDT : 
and ALBERT MSYDEN, Defendants. 


A {=> 2 
wm wuorend narrmos, | 27) JA, 620 


MER. JUSTICE O'CORNGH DELIVERED THE GPINIOK GF TAK COURT. 


Plaintiff, whe is engaged in the undertaking business, 
brought suit againat Louis eyden, bre. BK. Arndt and Albert lieyden 
to recover $553.05, claimed to be due kim for his bill in burying 
Charles Heyden, the son of defendant Louis Heyden and nephew of the 
other two defendants. Pisintiff disaiesed his euit ae te Louis 
Heyden, there was a fury, and sat the cloam of al) the evidence the 
eourt directed a verdict in fever of the plaintiff for the amount 
of hie claim. The verdict was accordingly returned, judgment ene 
tered on the verdict, and defendants appeal, 

The record discloses that plaintiff wae engaged in the 
undertaking business at 17 Madison street, Gak Park, ILlineis, and 
had been engaged in that tusineas for «a great many years; that about 
Ray 4, 1931, plaintiff saw Louis Heyden, father of deceased, and 
eertain ether relatives of deceased, with a view of obtaining plain- 
tiff's services in the burial of decessed, a man about 40 yeare of 
age, whese bedy was found near Lockport, Illinois. It further ap- 
pears that plaintiff furnished a easket and other material in and 
about the burial as well as a hearse, automobiles, ete.; that 
Plaintiff went to Leckport and obtained the body from an undertaker 
there, tonk it te his place of business in Oak Park, and on May 6th 
conducted the funeral, the bedy being buried in the Forest Home 
Cemetery; that plaintiff osid meney out of his own pocket ard 





“OSd..AsL 0 * — 





‘Fae § 
er, sas “tous at moaning * 
a EE: bss 
—" | oa ahd Mime oe 
PF Fy oe Tanta bee 








tiie ant Yo aouaTso hse ‘cua LR ⸗⸗ —J——— — —— 

SSAA a 

prance: — oat 4 — a * 
monyol arogla hme Path oi, oxi . dedcon hued, trakene dae ‘guar 
anivisd mk fthd wd 0% mid oub of of hemtato 80.8aeg, ⁊e vor⸗ : 08 
odd to worden haa sehyol alved gambas tes te aon edd «mab CoH ofa 
atuod 09 en five éhit besalaelh Trisates  edambas'teb owt —X 

oat aouohive edd fie te gagle at? to baw Enel ao bal oneds ——— 
davome sute tot Thhdatale odd Io covet at dokbeew a fetoorth tauoe 
ens tnomgbut ,houvutex ylgaldiooss saw tolivey od .mbeto abt to 
efaecce adashas teh bites dele ond me borat 
ext at hoyegas saw TiktateLa sand sonctents bucoet ot 

bate eiontiil ated an ,Soo1ds mootbell *r ae eesnteud gnbiadrebas 
suede dat jerany yanm deat, # Te? asonlawd sastt at boasgas need bast 
ban ,beacoosh Yo ted?o% ,ambysi etwod wow Yitalelq ,feL ,d yaa 
~tlaln gatatetde ‘to welv 2 dghw ,beveeseh to werhsetet tedso states 
‘Yo nusey Ob fwede aan a ,hoensoeb Yo fuived od oh evotvros — 
“qe wocruvt $1 .ehonkifl ,Fromieed tesn have? aew vhod ob on⸗ oe 
bas ot fnitetem idto baw tedene a bere desu’ Vrtsmtale dace ateog 
tadd :.0c9 ,20livemotue ,eeteod # ne Liew ae habtwd ott tute 
reierrehas ae mot? ybod edd hemtasde has dromivod of foow vos eho 
#38 yell no bac ,sue% XoO al anontend Yo waelg ob of oh ood omens | 
pmol foore ot af belted gated ehad att an⸗aon ont detowbnee 


ee am 
fawn tors og avo aid to tao yous biker whigatese tact vemtomt zY 











incurred lisbilities whieh go te make up most ef the items of the 
bill; he paid $82.50 to the undertaker at Loekpert; he pald or 
became liable to pay the miniecter whe conducted the religious 
services at the funeral, $10; he became liable for the cost price 
ef the casket and a suit of clethes for deceared, ané other items 
mentioned in the bili, 

The evidence uleao ie that on Pay 6th, st plaintiff's place 
ef business, juet before the funeral services, plaintiff dewanded 
of defendants that he be paid befere he would prececd further with 
the turial. Defendant Mary Arndt testified that che first met 
plaintiff Way 6th at his undertaking eatabliei ment ahortly befare 
the funersl; that “Kr. Smith (plaintiff) aaid there would be neo 
funeral until thie bill was signed." Gm ecresr-examination she 
testified, “I signed it because he said thera would be ne funeral, 
I saw the figures °300 for a essket.” The defendant Albert Neyden 
testified that he did mot tell plaintiff ho would pay the bill; 
said "Hothing much, juat signed the bili. if Just told Mr, Swith I 
would put my mame on it. I thought it was Just put dewn as a wite 
ness for the name of Zary Arndt, syoeieter.*** Sith aaid there 
wouldn't be a funeral unierss we gigned, *** Lr, Smith aaid there 
would be no funeral uniess I signed my name to the bili; thet he 
wouldn't go ahead with the funeral unlese I signed wy name. I 
wanted the funeral te go shead.” Louie Neyden, futher of deceased, 
and whe Was originally sued but who was diswiseed out of the case 
om plaiatiff's mation, teatified fer the defendants that he met 
piaintiff about Kay Sth, the day before the funeral; that they 
talked about the burial amd pleintiff asked whe was going to pay 
for the funeral and wituess replied, “You ean't got the money off 
me, because i haven't got it. Take it off his estete;" that just 
before the funeral the witness refused to sign plaintiff'a bill; 







ont ‘te mises: ld te deen Bd weal ed on, do kaw ae tsicidobe tbe 

10 bing a; — ta “ealepeebay edt of 08 REG —* cane 

“gbetaitet wot he tauhaon git ————— we. ans . 

as Eg @ego sit ret oldall eunosed ot ioxe , ——— eds te” 

: nent dnitrs ‘tel: ,deealeade cot settee te: tinh iach: —— 
| ee .fttd add ot benottomm 
3 #eaty s'Yttsatety te .4d8 ye ne fads a2 on fe eonehive sdk 

Hohaexeth Witwlale ,deblvabe Letenet oad sho te ‘dank: paocetand Yo 

dtiv tedtre? doro oꝛa — od ——— bieg of ed fadd tteahin ob 1% | 


| “tei —— ode haat he Yr te09 the yun —— on 
“wate yibrote tassel states gatloseabay ett gh bia wr * 4 | 
ons of og bLuew enodg bise (mr takela) it bet ut fae ppg i 
Bs me ode — * —— wae ‘eng eats Litaw 6 a0 d 
: sterovst on ed btuow enous tue on sewaaod oh senate D jponatiee 


: ; ee et ee 
aevron —* tando · tet eat * ——— bal ret “goed” try? 5 
— 


—— —2— 
pens ould vee bivow ei vitsmlate Lies toa bib * ae 
: atk ont i. 
i sig tat otk biod tent, i 1b edt beste tout, sHlown sats oi bhas’ | 
Abies eee 9— arse 
othe a te awob faq taut ecw ab — r Ro) “e *— dug bivew 
A BS ieee Bee 
if orodt bee sa * von ——— — yuo Ne oan tt ot xet oun ht 
ye J te OR AAD a? 4 aritosre 
; eros bias ‘63 da. * ene — —— ew — ferent @ od ohiwow 
; ie uP Seteaae hae —— i 
ort tus —— anit on oman me beats J — pee et « 
— Waa RE eee we Pee "a i I 
Fi semen = bengte 2 ave Law Serena’ ont ee beens a Ny 2 nab. - 
. 3 3 ons bape A Se chee 
vbeusnsos te rors? ssobyeit — —— * oF ‘tonne betasy 
ay aed — hl * wad 
eeae ode te tuo bounbug bb anw oxte * —* Arr ges | | 
OO SSS ae IN 


_ tom od sets adrubaw tod ony wot betttans t 
wat tacit idexonurt ou voted vas nett 0 * fone mare . 
fae hes hae Vat io J 4 

we or patos, naw ost boxes vusntetg baw ) 


wa mcben of goad” 
one waen out tea # wae wor" shod igo anousiw ae ae 
“ety it a aa ei Ro, 52 Pc i hy 


“gant tacts *;e2nce8 als to th exe? —* ie ao wovest I 










































shy xia * sated y AY: iG FN “a ae} | 
‘ jie at rtentace mate es beaion unmet esd Levent ont ot 
br fay nas Dae, PER — Tet sted 


— 





that plaintiff then said, “There would be no funeral” unless the 
bill was signed and witmese replied that he would sign nothing; 
that his sister and brother, the defendants, wanted to see the 
funeral go ahead and then signed the bill; that witness would not 
sign the bill beenuse he could not pay it; that he had no money. 

Rildred Gerlar, sister of deceased, called by defendants, 
testified that she wae at plaintiff's place of business on the day 
eof the funeral; that she saw her sunt and umele sign the bill in 
queation; that plaintiff said “there would be no funeral unless my 
father would sign. He enid he could net sign it. Go they would 
met let the funeral go on, 86 my aunt and uncle eigned their names.* 

William #, Arndt, wen of defendant Mary Arndt, testified that 
he was present whee plaintiff's bill was signed by his mother and 
uncle; that “mith esid to them that the bill would have to be 
signed er there would be no funeral. In fact, he asked me te sign 
it, and I said, ‘Ko’ that I had ne work, i could not eign 1t;" that 
then his mother end unele signed the bill. 

Above the defendants’ cignatures on the bili appeare the 
following in typevriting: ‘I will be responsible fer the payment 
of this bill." Plsintiff and a number ef witnesses testified that 
these words were on the bill before it was signed by the twe de- 
fendants, The defendants and a number of witnesses teatified that 
these words were not on the bill at the time. 

on a motion to direct a verdict fer the plaintifr, the 
court cannot weigh the evidence, but ali of the evidence in the 
record must be viewed in the light most faverable to the defendants, 
and if there is any evidenee, more than a ecintilia, the motion 
should be denied, and this too even though the court was of the 
opinion that if the jury rendered a verdict for the defendants he 
would have to set it aside om motion for a new trial. Libby, Ne- 


Heill & Libby vy, Yook, 222 111. 206. 








eae seekee “Laregot om ed binow axel , hes ondd Tiialele dads 
jgaigian agie SLvow oa gate bebiqer seoativ how Reapte sew sid 
oi? 999 BF hetant ,etdeboo kab ot .gesigerd haa tetote afd sed 
fom biwor uncaiin ad? pLthd anit hengte aedd hae Sepele op. Lavemitt 
ene ae basi od doce 62 qq dom Bde of geuaged 51d, edt apie 
sttoabus toh ys bedlao ,hotesosh Yo weds de te tmed BOTHELM Ee 
wos ele fo sasadnod. te goody e' Tiisalede te eaw ode sons bo Fitton 
ot Lhd odd mgie efeae dog taus tod was ose. darid, ahaa 
“a seeion Jayoaut on of Siuew oapis” Rigo Thitatatg.@add ¢ | 
hinew yeds ob 22 agia ton bingo od bhae of .apte 
"somes stad? beagle otoau fin Jame vn oe .mo om Lemons odd. eh tem 
“gasd hadthdeed ,thars yw damban' tes, Ye ape , toaps; 1 —— oe ~ 
ete eesitom oleh yt hemyte wow Lad a Ytedalede aac toonerg see ek 
coed, 98 eved bivow Lid edi dads spat, a@ Dhow sia heal” dad ‘et 24 i 
ie @? s@ hotsa od ,foe3 al ,ferean? en od Sdvow. —* i tm | ap te 
jute" 792 apie. som tiweo Jt yaixew om bad 1 sand. tat. bias I be oth 
eAibdomt heaghe. eke bow totaom abst most 
eld amass Lild ede og serutengde 'etashao wh eft oveda, . — * 
suomog odd col eftlancgnen od tile IY pqadd tewogyt at as ‘J ofiot 
dans hadiigans soessatin to tedawa . baw ‘hatatest White, ates, * 
-oh av? sil? YS bongie sow ti oxoted Lihd eat ap, erow abrow sends Os 
tad? beLiisnes wszeontiv to tagqua a han adasdas toh oft .etaahan 
_ stathd oct te Litd aed, ne ton — * 

ME ahiiokg alt at doihwoy a goardh of agksem * — 
ou at ooaphive ad? Io Sis Jud yoomsbive oft sigtow soanse gxmgo 
Stasim'tph acid of aidarqved doom sight oat ah bowedy, of fom on oe 
Meisom os .aiiisaiow & anid stom ,egarbive yam a erode aL. poe 
| ld LO saw Sruco Of4, Agvedd aoe p08 ald bas ,bodand » | 
ad. gtanbasteh asd t0% solbrey 4 borehaet, yxwh aid 21 told nodak > 
“pi nuidtd fax? wan, 20%, noliom ao, eblae 2h, — ved biuow 
| si 80S £81 88S aog a 




































The question therefore is, Ia there more than a seintilla 
of avidence that the defendanta are not iieable? 

The defendants argue in their brief that the great weight 
ef the evidence is that the words, “i will be responsible for the 
payment of thie bill” were not written on the bill at the time it 
was signed by the defendants, and that tiere wae no consideration 
moving to defendants and therefore the alleged contract ie une 
enferceable, The testimony in the record as te whether the words 
above quoted were written on the bili before defendants put their 
Hames on it, is in sharp conflict; but if this was of any Lupertance 
in the decision of this ease, the action of the courtin directing a 
verdict for the slaintiff woald have to be reversed. Ve are of 
opinion that these words are of no impertance, because the undis- 
puted evidence is, as testified te by plaintiff and 211 the defend- 
ants, and other witnesses called by defendante, wicee testineny we 
have heretofore mentioned, that plaintiff etated that unlees defend- 
ante put their names on the bill he would refuse to go on with the 
funeral, It is obvious that everyone present, including the de- 
fendants, understced that the defendants by signing their names te 
the bill agreed te pay it. Louise feyden, father of the deceased, 
and William ¥. Arndt, son of irs. Arndt, ome of the defendants, 
both testified that they refused te sign the bill at the time bee 
cause they had no money or no work. 

As te the contention that there was no consideration seving 
te the defendants for putting their names on the bill, it is suf- 
ficient to say that plaintiff extended credit te them fer the amount 
of the bill, all the evidenes showing that he refuned to proceed 
with the funeral unless they agreed to pay the bill. The eredit 
having been given to them, it is clementary, under the law, that 


the consideration wae sufficient. There being not more than a 


asai ls ake ok 


SL eer Wet 


‘ra eS ⏑—— 


> eke alto l a taal 


eee ae ae ee hee a ee 2 


A Ee Re — — 


— — 


— —— — 


* 


efftvatoa o aatd bee eves of .ot evotered? waldewnp oft 6 O06! 
foidail ton wim etnahae iad eth sactt eenebive ‘te 
idy few taexy et Gand “telnd shed? wt epyte etaxbaeteh edt fo). 
ent tet cidieceqnes od titw 1° ,ebnew ey decd oh eomwkhve one Te 
gt ami? a82 Oe LASS ocd me oetiiaow fou ewww “£Lid Bled ‘to tremeag 
Solfwuehteaes otf caw owed tats baw \Ofembo teh ef0 YO boagly saw 
attr Of Sowden hoye ile sit oxototedd ham efnebaetad 02 gabvem 
edunow oft sodtenw of wa Breas odd al Yadaigesd ent setdnsp tetas 
‘ghet? Fuy etuahavteb oro'ted (68d add we absehew acew Aodoup rede 
eesatrognl yun ‘te sow ah Yi gad ;selCiaod gears af 02 (92 oo Bema 
@ gattosttd otexwoo ote ‘to molten ond (vesd o2Kd Yo Hekedgoe wats int 
te ot oF —  bonteven Of of oved hivow YtRFmbete ont wet gothrey 
“dibiy on? seeeeed (epee itegad oa ta om ehrew oRode ‘fot dere 
hie tah eff ife has Tthtalaly yo of beTtivecd ta .e2 somebivw hobng 
ow qua teed goede ,atrabae'teh Yo AeLLae aeaeoas te tedto bine’ ate 
-bawtob 
om? déiw ae oy of castes Rivew on L£id edd ae domed «cheat Seq BOR 
eb 6H yalbutoal ,sasaewy enogreve Jedd ewoivde eh OE taveayt 
of Homma Tedy geiagle yo ataehonteds wir dowd hoeterede — * 
 beasoped ont Yo setts? ,aedyel atudt wht yoy Od Seouge Lad suit 
 etnebes tek ade te ene , shawl er to age ,sbacw Vo mk SAE Bsa 
od Baht on So ELid ont nude oF hoaw'ter yous dads beDtieese eds 
Stew oo Te Yous en had yous eines 
gQiivom settareh isaed on saw axed? tadd todtoetuee ost of GA 

othe af $1 ,fiid oe oe seman these gulsond to't odie br tem ent oF 
dasomm wet «10t macs of thbeoto Bebuotae Tiltalete todd yao oF sete 
Ayesota of banvter of fad? gatwede ounehive off ffe \2Eiy ead to 
sihexe ‘edt. ffld ede ye ot beorge yon? eeotaw foteaut ody Hele 
ped peed oud cobay $ytetaousto ot 22 weds of novi mond pativa 
ge uel? orem fon ytiod eta dnote lTiwe new aot aaron tends et 
Ss RRL io SRR — 


seintilla of evidence t>) the effect that the defendanta were not 
liable, there was notuing fer the jury to decide, and the court did 
not err in directing a verdict. 
The judgment of the Municipal courte! Chicago is affirmed, 
AFFIRMED, 


MeSurely, P. J., and Katehett, 7., soneur, 















Sie ROS taps ee Beak GRR se Ra MSR ae ae oi 
J Wnunmnmn we ae eeeetve Daw peers rx ie 
— — pawl Bie Re een eet Baker —— 
wine 82 eie 4 v⸗ 
cine oh Seaton Ge we Merwe ay ah penmaNae 
— Si aet i ieh weed se" ane ie — 
| —— ya Ok ante ea UP Gane: deb ital 
io —— sean ait a wank ea’ werd a aw 
eg ee oe Ds ee Salt suitor 
































RTOS — ———— ————— pe ee abe: 
Bt ena ‘eli ‘ta ante ete sare? 





as oo WE PE (Chae ae oy —* paintne * de 
Finariveea WAR 09% seal a — feet cee " : fhe 
 Sirwory OF atin soe va fai we seach * ‘yh 
‘aoe Ne —— sda ibe 
oaity * pad ot ovata ‘it we : * 





Wed 





36346 
JAUSS B, SHACERLVORD 


VB. 


THS BELT RAILWAY COKPANY 
OF CHICAGO, a Corperation, 


ee i 
Appellant, ) 2 7⁊ OG I JAY 620° 


wR, JUSTICE O'CORBOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 





Piaintiff brought an setion against the defendant te re- 
cover damages for persotial injuries. ihere was a verdict and 
judgment in his fever of $25,000, and defendant appeals, 

‘The reeerd discloses that about 1:15 on the morning of 
January 15, 1932, sleintiff, whe was empieyed as « switchman by 
the defendant Railway company, while in the performanee of his 
dutice in svitehing care in ite yards at Clearing, illineis, claims 
to have been severely injured on aceoount ef the negiigence of 
another svitehman who was handiing ome of defendant's cars, as a 
result of which the oar pe, plaintifY was handiing,with | 
great ferce and violemee, throwing plaiatiff inte the gondela car 
and severely injuring hin. 

The work in wnhi¢h plaintiff was engaged was interstate 
commerce and he predicates hie right ef actien under the provisions 
of the Smployer'e Liability aot. 

the defendant,elt ieilway Company, maintains a yard at 
Clearing, Cook county, Allincis, where it distributes cars to other 
rallresa¢ companies and fer this purpese the ground ia elevated 
about 36 feet forming Rill, which is designated in the record as 
& "hump." The cars are brought up to the top of the hump snd 
there unccupled, a brakeman or switchman being in charge of cach 
ear; the cere run dorn the hump by ferce of gravity and are 


ewitehed to the prener railread track; they are controlled by 








a es 
* ee * 





tae Bee ZO aoLLIG ait ewanyzin —— * : — 












— OF dombas'tob est faniage wolfer dae 4dguerd Yentaiatt | yesh ge 
bas tadbxev & saw exes — — —— 


ia 
i 
4 

at 





‘4d meonigdlivg o oe Boyodyue waw ole WV LIu. nf ; 
Gh Re automa tery oat ab OLE yymeqene —8 es F 
‘ emle te \atont tit ,gutenstd da ebood att ad) eens 4* 
te avneg Ligon wid te Jaeooe ae hoxwtat ei 
— & te ,e%Ho ationdueted to ono gubiined sew eats —X — — 
— —VVV———— ——— ‘ten - otste iad 4 












a: « fuey # saistaien — —R&& #ted, danda ton k—* 
J ‘Peete of wise Sodudinsels Ji otedy ,atowsttt vetawen ee io 
J D ——— wh bewaty edd gagging wide aot fa non fluc th 
* te prone ‘it it hotampies® et suldw ,tiia a gui “ee * i 
(ee han et ot 19 et oh oF OH MeO wt, 
te sprucio at untod aaislod hoe oe sips : me 
' ote bins wearers ‘te este? w oat ame —— 


——— eta “wo phous huow 


Fo i. , as 
Ne Bhd EF RAS A A my, 

bak key ? . ny ae lay Tete ‘ 7h — ek MenPe 38 

at —— 


the ewitehman, At the time in question plaintiff was on the front 
end of an empty gondola hopper bottom goal car, applying the brake 
as required, and the evidence shows that when the oar was running 
into the proper track it was struck in the rear by another car 
soming down from the hump in charge of smother switehoen, with 
such force that it caused claintiff te be thrown back into the 
empty gondcla car against an I-beam thai was across the car, 
Plisintiff's testimeny is that hie back was severely injured, 

He testified that after he was thrown and injured he got cut of 
hie car, walked a short distance to an eleetrie car used to carry 
the men back to the tep of the bump, and that he coutinued with 
hie work, bringing down other care for om hour or more; that he 
complained to the yardsacter in charge of the switenmen that he 
was injured and wnable to continue his werk and wanted te ge home, 
and finally between twe and three e’cloeck he was ¢owpelled te 
quit work, and drove hie sautemobiie te bie howe, a distance of 
about five miles, 

The evidence further in te the effect that during the next 
three or four days plaintiff telephoned hie superiors advising them 
that he was unable te ge to work. The third dey he saw a doctor 
whe found that plaintiff was suffering from a seraped er bruised 
Fight thigh and considerable abnormality aa to the motion ef the 
hip and knee joint; that later the decter recomended that an Moray 
pieture be taken and somaunionted with the railway efficials, who 
eauved plaintiff te be sent te a hoepital where an Aeray pleture 
wae taken of hie back, Afterward plaintiff saw other doctors whe 
teek an keray oiecture about Pebruary Let and two others were taken 
about June 15th - about fifteen days before the ease went te trial 
en June 2th. 

The evidence further shews that Eovexber 12, 1925, about the 


time plaintiff wae being empleyed by the defendant, defendant caused 


tnoet sd4 se aeW Tiivaioig neddeenp ak tats ome ball santo tea owe 
wierd ott aulyiage ,teo ings agtied wqyed shebnay yoqne a te oy 
Babu aaw tag al? wedw fend swede yoombive oct fan ,hewkeoen ae 
tno aeitene yi weet oa? al downts enw $k Koand teqore ott avad 
ole ,neudodiwa tertedte Io egtaco we quel ome erst awob gubese 
ei? atul dood awerad od af Ttliatele Beewwo 22 Gea eote? dome 
.14o O49 kaetes ew Lend aeod+T se denies tee atoiueg yteme 
»korutal yioicves sew doed ald dad oh Cowes dant a! ar aacta tt 
Ye due Jog on botulal bas avert saw of tote tant bewiisend toe 
ETtad of foe tes oiseeda as of apandeth srede # bediow a > one 
adie havchiaen ef te87 Dae , qe ed? Yo gat ae? 08 fond nom ot 
ad decid (etem to Tod Ae Tet pray Tse awed ya ind , Stee Of 
od tart mendotiwn ade Ye eanade at — —— ot bln wt J 
4080S 63 08 betaer baw dcgw ald aumidane of ofsenu bee wian eae 
ed de Lisquge sew od doelo'e cetd? haa owt meade eine : 
to sonatekh a ,emed ais of SLidgeotus eke everh haw 4 ‘tien sup 
sao bbe ry — 
teem esis — dealt tee Xie estt of at — vesmbive: oat ie . : 
api? gaielvhe etolisque eid beacdge toe Tits abate myeb amet * oot 
xedook # wae ed yeh haley edT dtow oF ay ot okdnas new od salt 
beeintd so hoqexes « movt gsiueTiee say waaala la dasid au⸗ ost 
it Yo motion oid of we yi liemtoada piderabtenny han shat saybe 
Wek me iets debarasgeot totoot edt te¢ad fad? poate sect haw gia 
he sth ngerss Weliot oft athe heseeiauemes hue sodas od euugoke 
onsdeig eae. an pxedy Igdtgsod o of sme ad of Vittalele boamee 
ae @t9dneh focito wae Tideaiela beawiedtA Sead ahd to seed aw 
feing oiew etedio owe bar gol yroutdet tuode one be Jere me toot | 
iaixd of tan gaeo oad Sxpled ayRh moet tt2 swede ~ deh saul suede 
A002 emt wo ? 





















* * vii 
: - ett suede yeted (i todanve ged? exese octet wg Ps ti ial 





q “bemuse antes wow — ak 





an Aeray pleture to be taken of plaintiff's spine and back. ‘The 
five Xeray pictures are in the reeord, three of them were offered 
by plaintiff, one being taken on February 2, 1932, on4 the other 
two in June, 1932; and the two on behalf of defendant, one taken 
in 1925 and the other about February 1, 1952. From an examination 
of these keray pictures, which are in the record, we ore unable te 
discover any material difference between than, or any evidence of a 
fracture of any of the vertebrae. All the witmesses whe were at 
the yarde at the time slaintiff cisimed he wae injured, including 
the witness Curlee, scalied by plaintiff, teetified that plaintirr 
made ne complaint at the time that he had been injured, but his 
complaint was that he wae “sick” beqause of a physic ke had taken. 
Plaintiff, however, testified that he teld the yardmaster he had 
been injured ond was anabie to continue hie work. 

Plaintitf ecalied three witmeases to read the three Keray 
pictures offered by plaintiff ~ John &. “ingrene, a roentgenologist, 
whe testified that he was experienced in taking and reading ef teray 
pictures and whe took the tyve pletures of plaintiff's spinal eelumn 
im Tune, 1932; Dr. Seett, whe tecok an Aeray picture of defendant's 
bask on February 1, 1932, amd Dr. Hardon, The substanee of the 
testineny of each of these witnesses wen that the three Aeray pie- 
tures offered by plaintiff showed fractures of the 2nd and Sth lumbar 
vertebrae ani evidence ef other injuries. 

an deray technician cennected with Gt, Bernard hospital tere 
tified that she tock am A-ray picture of defendant's spinal column 
November 12, 1926, and delivered it fer disagnosia to or, Cushway. 
This pieture is im the recerd, Dr. Pond, ealled by defendant, tee- 
tified that he was a radio technician and took a pleture of pigin- 
tiff's spinel columm on January 26, 1932. ‘This picture ie in the 
record, Defendant ealied Dre, Dick ond Jilsere, she testified to 


their ability to read X-ray pictures and gave other teatimeny to the 











y of 


ost lead bas amiga a! Tivabede te salad o¢ of oiahodg york me 


AeteTie O1Mv mudd Lo nets -PeoReT a8 Of ste eeuNtelg yaTAd OE 
“Wedite edt bas 8601 ,8 yxewtio% no ceded gated 


nedet oe ,foahae'ieh 2e Teed ao. owe add fina {SOL yma meow 


soltesiuene ms cost S86 ,f yxawndet tuede teste oat hoe B8Ofout 


o¢ gidnay Om ew ,hieest O42 ah exe Modi s891NdebY YOrwK owes to | 


4 te coRcbi¥e Yor TS nest moowied eeneTeTL Ah Laleeten yoo -coveunib 
fa sew piv tvuvealiv edt Lk ,eatdettey edd te eee to wtutond? 
“BAthelonl ,ketubas aan et hasigde Tidtainde -onld ai te ghuee out 
VWdataig sold hordes ,Wetdatate — — 
mtd Gud ,betwhal mad tual of dade ombt odt te —⸗ 

2 tp aks — — 
bas! oi Tetseubiny et? Bled ast fads Solihteed , tere. 











— ⏑ et One Sosa od 
— at are ronan MENT — 





wrt~t Te gaitecs ban guided at beomelasexe ear od tony —— 


winioy iaulge a Vilgaialg Ws emrmdeiq ew? ot Moat ane San ! 
a inahas ted Yo exutety york ae awad ane othe’ .4d iS6er yonst at 
td 20 aemtedee oT pcb wet hoe Oe ye yxsurse% me toud 





wat Yet~k stadt tas? aew aosanutin ssusd Yo dome Yo ynonitens 


Nn ee a ee —— 
: atalsubai aedte te soasbive bas sexdedey 


weet italian st dike tevooqstes sakotadee? youak aA. vtaitig’ 


agukes Santqe 2 sneharted Xo erndeta yor aw ood sla tails batt 
Yaar? .1 oF alaangedh tot ¢2-botevdieh baw ,OGOk RE vodueved 

“aad ,taabaelod yt helian ,ba0% . 3%. .hteows ene ak ad wusete whet 

slate Ye eiutolg & Moot hao deiotasion’s ofbat a aww oa had sodas 
edd mi of omudoty sit .SE@L BR yxounet ap amefos sate a0 
O86 DOE ivent cit yotomlle daw Mok .awl Reding enbiwe toe drove 





| ⸗au at Yoombtass wise eva baw cevatody nak een ot tie wi 






4 


effeet that none cf the five X-ray pictures skews any fraeture of 
any of the vertebrae er any evidence of ether injuries, wd further 
that there wae no appreciable difference shown between the picture 
taken in 1925 and the four taken after plaintiff claime to have 
been injured, 

The record discloses that at the close of the testimony of 
Dr. Gilmore, whe was the last of the witnesees eslied to read the 
soray pletures, counsel for defendant atated that he had some other 
medical testimony, but the court eaid he weuld allow no more medical 
testimony - "I will Liwit medical testimony; they hod two end you 
had two; there ie nothing better settled than that the court ean 
limit the expert testiceny.” Defendant's counsel exeested, saying 
"There rae no limit sleced at the time plaintiff offered his testie 
mony." The court then stated thet meade no difference, - “plaintifr 
had two experts to resd the films, you hed two experte te read the 
Tilme,*** They had twe with their reentgenslogiet and you had twe 
with the reentgenologist and Dr. Riley.” At this peint,the record 
discloses, court and gouneel went inte chawbers, and after eonrid- 
erable discuesion counsel for defendant etated be wanted to eall 
Dr. Mitchell, Or. Gushway ond Dr, Subeney, for the ourrese of reade 
ing the Xeray pictures, the one taken in 1925, and the four taken 
in 1952, and that they would testify that there wae no evidence of 
fracture of the vertebrae or of other injuries to the spine. The 
court refused te permit thie but stated that defendant might call 
any ef the doctors ey a physical examination of plaintifr, 
that the testimony of the three docters last mentioned would be 
cumulative, and therefore refused to permit them to testify. 
There is some other evidence in the record which we heve net 
adverted to because we have reached the conclusion that there must 
be another trial, 

Defendant contends that the declaration was net sufficient 








* 


te erugamtt yee events aewitong tsk erst add Yo. enon. dna, teste 
aedtes? bate seotavted redse to opunbive yas 10 gandeduer ade wae 
eaugo? oas quewaed weeds sommes YES oldateorqee ot eer eset saat 
eved ‘of aabele Tiktatele 199% modes wwe? ect Ame ORCL at sodas 
tw yaomldeas oct tq egeio sft fe Sarit apeaieipeneg wrae: ie wpegia pe 
alt hawt oF heLing eosasaite ost Yo ted 9? ew ace yOROMELO «xe 
sodte smeo ben ed test bedete Posbae teh tat Jeennes eoeKuto te Yet 
facthan oom om Walis hinow od bing stHay ode suet vend 409, fan then 
aox fete avi ben yee jyawaiteed fenibom shelf (Lie 2" » ymomi 

age aves edt sedi weds delises wsted galuten wh. nna ak 
nalyas Baterons fenwwon atanahoe ted %qmeatignd ¢reqne oat tmnt 
clined shi bow Te Tibickelg eal? at to Sevete Iimkl om caw enedt® 
natatata = {Oos9T TEE ow hom dad? fodete meth mene a even 
oii? heer of atsegue owt dud gee geelh? ont hoot ot sty we owt had 
and hes wey bas tnigalonsytargy chess aby, ens bed ‘esent Pee mek 
‘brooe an? dntog aid? $A Seale .10 fae Pelgetonagianes net ted 
Dtenos teste fae yatoduats etek sav Lonayos bag FtH08 4m | 
—2 ot bodnew ox doteda danhan'tedh ek Leewes | 
bar Yo sagging vee sat 2 Voandak * bas yewdew? . hf 
mesed Tuer od? bus 88k wt mpxed gay site ae — 
Xo samebive on aav sts? sad? YILdeed bivow yost tent haw — 
edt .aakes ont of sottwtad verte to ze eatdasrey ont. J 
iLan tigia tuahagten esd Rotedn tus odes , 4 ttomeg of benwter Fuses 
oe Tibimele Ye Boléaninaxe Seoteyde © ehashgaw stosaed ost Yo. yae 
nd bhwew tenpitaen gamk axotoeh goss? est Yo ator — ont tage 

— ehbden’d of ema? ttenee of Soavtex etoteneds haa, erkesLenmin 

tea evad aw dotde broeos, edt mt pomhive: testo. pos. a, ees 

ene Noan Saute agtnuionos sit Secoons — — bes 

































— ‘ten saw ——— ott taste . ep tne 
ty Bs Le Tes RES ð iy roe ee Lae Mk a eS 


to support the verdiet; that the sole allegations upon which Lia-e 
bility wae predicated was the negligent driving of tha ear which 
etruck the car plaintiff was operating; that plaintiff did net attempt 
te prove that slliegation, but that the only proof it effered war to 
the effect that the brake was in good condition at the start but 
suddenly failed to work. We think the evidence tended te show 

that the man in charge of the second car was negligent in driving 

the car, at least the question was for the jury te decide, 

Cempinint is also made thet the court erred in admitting 
ene of the Aeray pictures offered by plaintiz? on the ground that 
there were red arrow marks poicting out alleged pathelegy. We 
think there is no merit in thie centention because the testimony is 
te the effect that the red arrows in no way obliterated any part 
ef the picture or that they in any way interfered «ith the reading 
or the understanding of the film, 

We think the contention of the defendant, that the court 
erred in refusing te permit it te eali the three Decters te read 
the Aeray pictures ateve referred te, must be suetaimed, While it 
is the law that the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may 
limit the number ef expert witnesses (Geehecan ° 





266 111. 482), yet we are ef the opinion that as a general prepe- 
sition, this should be done at the beginning of the trial. Green 
tO., 154 111. 310. In the case last 





cited, the application of the rule limiting witnesses, involved 
lay, SOt expert, witnesses; but we think what was there said is 
eppropriate here, The court there eaid (p.516): “Moreover, if 
the power of the trial court to limit the number of witnesses, as 
here exercised, existed, which can not be conceded, it should have 
been done at the beginning of the trial, se as to give each party 
on opportunity of selecting such wlinesses as might be deanada most 


important." And the court there further said that limiting the 





wake ‘got modu enatienetia ofoe ‘ead pets {Folie odd Proce 4— 
gg tet tag eat ‘Ys antelsh ted Lane one enw bedavinerg env y bite F 
— * fea Alb Trisniata dads isal terece nsw “iitalete weo sald — 
of aaw boxevto 32 Yourq ————— covey o¢ 
dud trade odd te motstbuos boos mt aan paws. oat act} tos be —8 
oad sang Welw oF be that {aoe i 
pat via al dns y2.fge nn euw tao baeoee esl? tw sortase ah nie aa" todd 
,ebleebh of yuut add vot eaw neiseoup ‘efd danbt te , tae sas i 
~ Qades tabs ni berze tiwvee edd saad bam owls ak tilatqued —— 
tans buserg exis ae Vidsalele xe bexstio weantote ets ‘ead “te 2 te 
8 WMo leeiaa begsita tuo gabzaiog atest worts ben wae a — 
at emesitaod wile raxanod soitae;nen ekst ab Na⸗n oa ot wae dmb a 
: tune yee besataeh te wee ea al eworte bon au⸗ sad doen a * 
atheon | ons lt iv borelvogat wr yas al ‘eosit fadi m0 | ot tote * 
“i 1 lig 
dauos ads Sadt ,2nshacied 97 Yo notsaesaon * re i * 
“beet of wuprool cords eft Lian of ot shore of galester deka 
$i efiaW benieveus od tose +08 borietor ove 6 eonudete —E ae 
wa — paves te we lorexs ond al , — owes out tact wot —— 
side soto .v neuedeed) usenontiw tome ‘Ne Vowel ‘eet — 
— —2 a ae dens ices end ‘to ‘eto ow * (aes 7 | 
—— tala? os Yo yataatyed to * anos hed — ie 
deat geno ⸗a⸗ al —* tit * a ) eal ¥ . ie 


| 
| 
, 
| 





































a —— — ——— ‘ent ae i Sia * “0 
ae seeauend tw te edawa ool — * od ANuos ‘tobed este ‘ag ' —* 


Fig oi ante — 

ovad biseda ae be beomes of ton wea dotdw hodaaeo sboctoraxe oiet 
ee Ae Be a is J 

—— sone ‘ovis o? se on ‘faket ‘eat to ambaataed ang 3 Me 
eine et be nish if i 

te ote bewsae of — Ba seasons iw owe yatsantos te | 
ee *8 — 

ot pals bets test bixa retetse erate axvon odd Bak” 680 a3 SOR 





number of witnesses in that case was erroneous, (>. 317) “especially 
muat thie be eo where the order was wade after the designated num- 
ber of witnesses had been examined by her.” In the instant case 
there wae no intimation that the number of witnesves would be 
limited until the second Doctor had read the Aeray films when the 
court announeed he would hear no more, Yad defendant's counsel 

bem aware that there eae to be a limitation slaced om the number 
of expert witnesses, he might have called some oi the three 

Dectore since he might be of the opinion that their teatinaony 

would be sore Leportant. 

Purthersore, the statement of the Gourt that @ach aside 
had the testimony of two experts whe had read the filme, might 
lead the jury erreneously t infer that the court wae of the opine 
ien that the testimeny on this vital question wae aporeximately 
equal, Morsever, pleintiff hat three expert witnesses who read 
the three flime introduced by plaintiff,and net two witnesses; 
while on the other hand, the defendant nad csiled but twe witnesses 
whe read the /keray pictures, the one teken in 1085, nearly seven 
years before the accident, and the four taken after plisintirr 
elaime he vas injured, 

The guestion whether plaintiff's espinal eoluem was fractured 
and otherwise injured, a8 a reeult of whieh he was severely and 
permanently disabled, or whether there were ne fractures or other 
evidence of injuries, and ne appreciable difference between the 
#pinal column as shown by the fiim taken before the accident and 
these taken after it, or whether plaintiff was injured at ali in 
the performance of hia duties as elaimed, were of vital Lanortance, 
The claimed injuries te plaintiff's spinal coluwn were the basie 
of practically ali of plaintiff's claimed damages, because there is 
ho claim that the injury suffered by plaintiff, outside of those, . 
wan of inate hha consequence, We think the limitation of the 








& 


* 


Videleogne” (Til .c)} ,SeMRMoTte eae amo Fast au (sesmand bw te ‘sedans 
mats RAIREALReh as n obam sew tebx9 wild enasy on of ates seam 
sony dintons exe ak = ° stead ed poatlenae neo bas aanunci ty Yo x0 
ed binew esenaatiw he wodawn exit fr) sok tumbsat ea saw oreds 
sit 
fennwse ef tnabew teh hails orem On tans bine ag heen awos 
code ont ny hennta — a ed of enw oxnst Gade suave mad 
nerd? ex? Xo wmon bokinn — 
vae⸗iaana thodd tast notakge one * fiat od outa etotaed 
: — —— won ot Ahwow 

ebte Av ae toas dauen ons te —— orig — ———— —* 
tity eed ahd hoor hod ede attogse ont Xo outae — 
«alge sits te kaw Stu09 ond dust wal of ylsuonnorae — 
_Uatastnoteea ane wohseawe Leake eka se ynomigeed ‘nalt asts * 
———— —— —8 basal a oata ia —D—— “ta 
jameesas iw awd ton bne Widwtate v⸗ hmouberant sant omnes aut 
sonnsativ ows usd belles Boi danbas tes oad shear reat, ou no elise 

Aaves Eiteean anes uk sated Mate ents — — — weTNaa ewe beer ou 
“Rbeatalq te9te aedad wo ons bs donations sat one ortgited od a 89 
— shoustal tor od antete 

—R ony mauling Lontwe — Mldatate snelt oat nottasue ont ? 
fame ¢ioxeves ane eet sig deter ® $ kwaet & os — ve twraave has 
— wet zo Borst oatt on —* oroa⸗ Tess ct “@ sbotsoatd ieonmatee 

ens aoawsed —E& Lb oidaieeraen oa ime castuwtat to 80. 

fate ‘¢uebions els etoted Metad we2% oa⸗ ed pai a shoo foates 
ak ise te hetulad wew Mhiate te wddode xe ft rode waxes conoid 
sonst coun ingtv te oxow donde Lo as ap Ldub a kak * — ——— at 
aiaod oid exew uma Loo Sank e' Vistalele of eotawtat bomtate oat 
ek weeds aauade u ——e bentaLe at wRigals sg te sis _Lisottoaxg ‘te 
ayes 2 2 phietwe 1 Teadatese ya boro Ytus wveetau oau * — 


sult te mph ens tubs wate aakst ow _ssousupensoa wexkiocdoct 1 aa 
‘ —— oe — 








HAE 


number ef expert witneeses, and wnat wae eaid at the time, wae 
prejudicially erroneous, 

Defendant further contends that the court erred in ree 
fusing to give te the jury an instruction tendered by it. The 
instruction was to the ¢effeot that the defondant was net required 
to guarantee or ineure the safety of plaintiff but that it was 
merely obligated te use ordinary care to prevent unusual riek te 
him, etc. We think there is no merit is thie contention. The 
Bmployer's Liability Act requires that « railroad company exerciece 
eordisary care to prevent injury to ite employees, not that a 
Tailroad company is ‘merely obliged to use ordinary care te 
prevent unusual risks, etc,.* Koreever, the inetruection was ab- 
stract in form and it has eften been held that At is not error 
to refuse such an inatruction, 

For the reasons stated the judgment of the Superior court 
eof Geok county is reversed and the sause remanded. 

AXVERSED AND RRUADRD, 


NeSureiy, 7. J., ond Batanett, 7., concur, 





Bow souks oat ts Blas enw ter bee — nss 
79% ah boxte susso eee duit aboesmen —E onasaeted: OH 
ack 24 ys howwehaot motteetions ae yah ae Ot Ovig OF ‘_abent 

Sorlupsy fou AW Imadae ted edt tid tose ot 09 Wow motsoiidund 
Gar th teat dud Thisainly lo yowtes wrt wtwend te eavnetara of 
a? ESit Aevesau paeverg at ouee VU Te Cay oF betegstds Yom 
od? . .aphioaitos edst ot tenon at ered? anti OW late Yd 
Ootoraxh YRacns AaoTiiet © Sed) memsupT JOA WHET RCS a eeiydligall 
& dant do oseyetane el of yrwtat samwerty ‘be eine” wen 
| a ae wanaltonn een at heuhite at Wail heenies. 
wie naw mpldowrtant eds roveetoM * 080 vadwhe tkewliat sive 
91nd fon ab ts gett ient-ipeet maéte wed OF hee wero af he 
—EX sie ae oaitton 3 
fu Teinegs vat to sMemabel est hodads wnbeaer ait OT = tone 


-Sebhoeaek orate act bos heetevex #2 — 
RTA ila, CEMENT hese a ebm 
ib 


wk 
Oe ee a et ee Dawe eset 


“tomes , —— ns J— — | 
— RESCUES Were oa esata be 





ot apan : 8 a i» Rati gel teeny a 
ta Pie Bear * J BER May Lh . * — * 
OF — 54 * * ects aay harasses eas 
Py asi ; : > i i ‘ si 

Betdee te slteeecree 
— —— pig dha 

neavctat te * res vty 
— tha" onal a aoe 
* x ark BB cp Kiet oats 


+ mandate pra ——— ty eet ; 
ie 
iia See — D—— ae 
1 ee es ere: — a) a baw & J 158 bike , anh He ts 2 —9— aie te: — 


wet to aolgwe tals att aatst we ——X tt BA ——— Xe — 





36385 


AUBURN STOKER GALES CONPORAT 
a Corporation, 






Appellee, 
vs. 


FRED BECKLENBERG, 
Appeliant,. 


BR, JUSTICE O'CONKOR DELIVERED THR OPINION GF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff eaused judgeent for $1557.44 to be entered by 
eonfeseion against the defendant on a promivsory note. Afterward 
on defendant's motion the judgment was opened and he was given leave 
- to defend and to file a set-off, claiming that he was entitled te 
the return of $148.37 he had paid on account and $75 expense he 
had been put to in removing a stoker plaintiff had installed in 
defendant's building. There was a trial before the court witheut a 
jury, the judgient entered by confession was confirmed and defendant 
appeals. 

The record discloses that Cetober 10, 1931, plaintiff and 
defeniant entered into a "Contract of Uenditional Sale,* whereby 
plaintiff was to install in «a good and workmanlike manner in the 
77-apartment building omned by defendant one “Auburn Hydraulic 
Steker Complete with Blectrical Equipment fer AC 60 Cycles 220 
Volts 3 Phase and Automatic Control,” for which defendant agreed te 
pay $1483.30 - $148.37 on the signing ef the contract, the same 
amount on completion ef the installation by plaintiff, and the 
balance of $1166.56 te be evidenced by defendant's promissory note 
payable in 12 equal monthly installments. On the snme day, October 
10, 1931, defendant executed his installment note payable to plain- 
tiff's order for the $1156.56. It is on this note that the judg- 
ment was confessed. 


The evidenee shows that during the last days of Oetober, 












‘9 ga UTS. 
-TAUOD BEE vo ‘MOTATSO ait MMV ERE aoauos o 


ee heredas ed: ad — — — boouas Miitatest 
brawied tA edous, Weenelaatg, & a8 daehae toh ‘enteye molaee 


* ee yy * PM 

aves L novia aay oi baw bounge aaw # enamgbict ond. notson #' ¢aabne teh, = 
— pets J— 

ot po ktss as. aay on, émsht pithadete at te-tee a An al bas basteh Ss 


oa annonce arq bas tasesee 99° biog had od J—— te ute edt 
st hethatent aoe Ythdalele takodo & satvone a * need 


— — eae. 






Ane Tihsalssa EOL ,OL todoted saat senolowth Rroeet ott 
edorsse *,ofet Sanetsibaed te soartneo" » odat beresae tn nat an teb 
ods ak “nam SAtinnmixow bas beog a at itetant of ew @ 
ativesby! eaedvA” suo taehaetoh yd deame saistted ‘taems Ge 
| CRE weLoyd 08 9A x0? Snomglvp Lentxtee ti abe eto quod xeitost 
* dewaye dnabao to sie) ete got * Lowdoe’ oitaccdua bane oan & aetev 
ih onan eat sfoetiaes oad ‘te yatta te oat ft) TE ODEO - - 8 C088 wae 
acid bate Widatete ue ugitefierent esd ‘te nottetemen ne —8R 
aton cone tong a drtabav tab ed beoaphive of of od· do ctt ‘te ‘soaniod 
— (Yah ome ous ab ~udsrpard iageat —2 Laxpe Rr at iaer⸗ 
othe ke ee ekdayag eson taont teens eis —R av bas vob BRE 108 
“anh | ant tard aston elit fad a 4 be weet ons f xo J anntat 











1931, plaintiff installed the steker in defendant's apartment 
building, but inatead of using a 3 phase motor, as mentioned in 
the contract, it used al phase motor; that complaint was made by 
defendant from practically the beginning that the stoker did not 
work properly, and plaintiff sent men to the apartment building 
from time te time in an endeavor te see what was wrong and to 
remedy the diffiauity. Plaintiff offered some evidence to the 
effect that upon tests being made it was found the stoker was 
operating properly. On the other hand, we think the overwhelming 
weight of evidence shows that the stoker never did work properly 
and thet defendant continually made complaints and in January 
asked plaintiff to remove the otoker from the building beeause of 
the unsatisfactory manner in which it operated. Hegetiations were 
carried on until about Aprii ist, - piaintiff endeavoring to see 
that the moter worked properly, but without success, when at that 
time defendant rewoved the stoker beesuse plaintiff refused to do 
BO. 

Plaintiff admite that it 414 net use the 3 phase moter as 
mentioned in the contract but instead used al phase motor, and 
there was some evidence tending to show that al phase motor was 
slightly more expensive than a 3 phase motor. 

It further appears from the evidence that the Commonwealth 
Edieon Co., which furnished electricity te the building, apparently 
fer lighting purpesen, on December &, 1931, advised defendant that 
it would not eontinue to furnish power to defendant, partly on 
account of the single phase motor plaintiff had installed. A ssles- 
mam of plaintiff testified that he inapected the stoker shout the 
16th or 2th of Sovember at defendant's request, and there had a 
@iscussion with éefendant's representatives, and "we (plaintiffs) 
offered to install o three-phase motor thereafter if Lecklenberg 


would inetall the wiring." It further appears that defendant 





 gmemdteqe af dasbosteh at “ ai? bekiod@ds — ole 
at benoltavm ae Sod om ened & a gates te heotent tt ‘daa 
wa show saw Inia saxoo tase paetom easda fw hesw 32. jdoeutaon odd 
tan bib redote oft tasd gainaaiged ext viteottoang mont ted ante 
| abetted treations oid $4 mom tnoa “‘Yubsaiele bee yetreqete ftow 
ot bas gnote aaw tede o98 of tovechas ae of omtt of okt movt 
odt of poaehlve sudo bexretYo ‘Yrksdlelt yadda PPRRN edt Be Oy 
aaw sexote ait hawot enw tf ebexs nied ates * fant ‘eaatts 
galatedereve ost gabds ae «boat soto ont 0 













r aoꝛa —2 bib xavea vedere ot taste ‘ewaste pic 10 # ts ig tom 
‘etait ab baa edaletanos shan At⸗cattao⸗ aua danas ae⸗ iam, 

te oavoond pak itnd oni or — asd ovens ot Wiitatete be fan 
erew ‘anolinttese’ sbatexsao 4 t ‘Ho bite at ro ackn e ateets bree * 
asa oe gatrovasbas Viktataste - ~ tot tbaga suede tiem ag a 


“tend te ae thor stesoous ‘dad? bw ud cixeqort hexrow ea eas q dl 
ab ‘a begu'tor ‘Tehvaiaty eeunasd aetete od —— saab Td 








ae —E panda & odd ow ton ok 4 tent at tabs vuentatt wee 


* TSA 
bas . Tos 008 gence [ # deew bavseat dud soardunen ods at nantes 
— — 


— totes wanda £ a ast wean * ——— soasbive onoe ae — ha 
a —* hen anes 


eat 


ad Laswnouse? A⸗ dust ply out sok erage —— Ns 


é i ge mea 
aw aau⸗ vant hbid ont at usiolxdoe Le boda tory’ ‘do ain * soe tht 

ano ae oft t 8 of 
Paid ‘tnab toh * ivba e ——— ne .avv orm = ʒu⸗ gzet ot 
* “usted taba teb of sewed ‘de tow’ os euntiaes fem. biwow 2, 


<usles & "he Lindeat basi Menats ta roto —* etante ons * retest 


eds twoda ‘eodese ent badoogeat 4 das bothigess uueta te ae, 
gp bask execs bow tanuper 8 daubas'tod te aeduovos ‘ts ag08 to ioe 


sae 56." AS ee i gH" J 


“(rttintese) ee” baw — ‘el tanbaoteh at kw noke — 
ye Eee aL 


gxodaeLdoct tl tes taete dd votom — ⸗ — of hex 
— Fhabao 296 tas oxacyen conreat ¢ ot * — ‘oak A bio 









refused to do thie. There is considerable evidende in the reeord 
as to whether defendant used the proper kind of coal in the stoker, 
and further evidence that three different kinds of coal were used, 
As stated, the evidence shows that shortly after the stoker was 
installed constant complaints were made orally and in writing by 
the defendant that the stoker was working improperly; and that 
plaintiff endeavored on numerous occasions to eliminate the com- 
plaints made, but without success. 

Plaintiff contends, as we understand it, that even if the 
gtoker did not work properiy, defendant eould not rescind the sale 
becauge he had used the siteker too iong, - from the early part of 
Hovemher until about April ist. ‘The contract entered inte between 
the parties wae a conditional anle, the title to the stoeker remaining 
in plaintiff by the exoress terms of the contract, until the 
stoker wae Tully paid for. the defendant did not use the steker 
witheut complaint, but was conetantly complaining that the stcker 
never worked preperly. In these cireusstances we think the eon- 
tention of slaintiff is untenable, 

A further contention made by plaintiff is that the contraet 
4id not provide for the purchase of a motor; but this is contrary 
to the express wording of the contract, part of which we have above 
quoted. And a further argument is, that defendant did net provide 
suitable wiring so a 3 phaece motor might be used, We think this 
contention is whelly without merit. Pilasaintiff was in the business 
ef selling and installing stokers and was supposed te be familiar 
with this work. The defendant was not faniliar with the installing 
of stckers. ies building hed already been wired and it was the 
duty of plaintiff to know before it seld the steker that the build- 
ing was in proper condition for the installation of the stoker, If 


other wiring were necessary, it seems obvious that this should have 


been brought te defendant's attention before the sale was made, 


&B 


bioess sect af sbavbive sidetokianos at axed? .wtsdt ob ———— 
.tededa add at daoo te bali zottong ods hase saahao teh mestte r ob os 
boon exer iaay te ahold seem kith eeads sadt eosohive oie he 
_ gate wood sat torts \iizete Jedd evera ganehive ets ,hodade, ah 
w aaisiow al bas ydiowe sham otew efalatqmes tandano — *& 
gadd Sea jyiteqetqal galitow eaw tadada. este edt drab bs 
-aoo ent afontalie of eAolsuneo ayetemum a6 batevanha, wudarate 
— teaeoene tHodhe Said Shen adnate 
sig u aye Fest 4 — — ow ae aBbcie2 ae9 . Rrdeatedy, ; tae 
eine ot hatosex fon biwoe sookae lob .yizomorg, ixor, ton bb neko a 
le dtaq yisee off sett - .emed woe toxdola odd hoes bed oe * ed es 
aeewied etal boxedme —E oat ,taf itaea juede.£itau, — 
—EDE totose off of ellie en? ,eLes anoisidaos 2. an ephstag amt > 
_» 985 54809, ,foestapo ea? Yo ame? aaatexe, od yd. —— 
Tadote d# eau fos bih tamhawtod off. .t9t diag, Wie} ween 
| Toiode edt todd galaiatqnoa ———— aw tnd ,atete ——— 
“Ead gif anid? of seotiadnavetio enerds ent hextxost s07Ra 
sivemezos gh Thigalal,. ts molenes 
sorxg.ave edd fads af Tiitalele, yd obac. Moline tates, taddx ut host se 
Ctarsnon wi atdd ied ;tetem @ le sagdotyg od? tel ebivors tom. bik 
eveda ovat ew doldw to @ieq ,Foattaes sat Ageing erie) ot 
ahiverg fon bib sanhacteh ted? el tanmegta aeddayt « bod bode 
04nd datas oF heey of Sagle cotem apadg £4.08, patti, —R 
— ‘ord ot enw 22 fdutass  sibtea dens iw yilode, sk seisossaag 
ta kk iovat ad ot heeoqase av bas eigiiots aabidedaak Dae, pation te 
ant Ltazeat, ait Holy tetihast gon age sacha ied oat. .ktew helt atthe 
add aay it bas hotly aved yhagtio hed gathitud 2h, .exedote, ae 
«blind oat feds taxkoda off Dhow JL gaged woad of Tikdalmte Yo wah 
2 .aoweds ons Ye aoltuLtedmal od? x9% moltihaon yeqote, ah Rew Bi J 
ovad ‘twade abit tac avolvde emoan tf \Wiseseoon anew galrw notte. 
J aaw ales oft ototed soltanite 2! Snahuetod at tetgwerd med 


























4 


Defendant wanted a stoker to heat his 77-apartment building and this 
was the job plaintiff contracted to so. In fact plaintiff in ite 
brief says, “The intention of the parties was to inetall an auto- 
matic coal stoker suitable fer heating defendant's building." It 
could not exeuse itself after it claimed te have sold the stoker 
and installed it, by saying that the wiring in defendant's build- 
ing was improper, 

Pleintiff further contends that the contract in question 
contains express warranties and therefore ne implied warranties 
will be presumed, and that there ie no evidence in the record of 
any breach of the expressed warranties mentioned in the contraet. 
As etated, we think the evideree shors that defendant relied upon 
Plaintiff that the ateker would properly heat his apartment build- 
ing; otherwise, of course, no contract would have been entored into. 
Plaintiff knew defendant's purpese in buying the steker and knew 
that plsintiff was expected te see that the steker properly performed 
the functions 1t wae supposed to perform, in these circumstances 
we think the law will imply a promise that the etoker would reasonably 
perform the work intended by both parties. Seetion 15 of the Uniform 
Sales Act, chap. 121 A., Cahill's Kevised Statutes, provides that 
"Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known te the 
seller the particular purpese for which the goods are required, and 
it appears that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment 
(whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not), there is an im- 
plied warranty that the geods shall be reasemably fit for such 
purpose.” See aiso Mandel Bros. v. Mulvey, #30 111. App. 548, 

For the reasons stated we hold that the finding of the 
trial court is against the manifest weight of the evidence. The 
judgment of the Municipal court of Chicago will be reversed and 


Ry 
sits baw gaibited éwendtera-t? sid teok oF cedogn e hodaer tan Dao to 
gen af Tekakely doet il Vee of Berobttnoa Yt ate ty — * wg 


¢t “Jgmihitud a! daehas toh yatrwed vet fied ten tolfode — 
ae ete bow ever of bowlet> $F vests "thesdt sausko ton bitioo 
«hited a’ tanbie'teh ak gedviw ss) dane gelbces * ver et.ta at faa 
Ee * 
molteeun mi foatinoe edd tate whoedmes 7 

ran Seliqad an srototos? Bae’ neltanvrew eaetgxs entetnos 
So fuses ont ak sorehive ee ef scent Fad? fos \peeee ty * 

 \featiaed edd A bono luem eeitiortew res off Yo Keke 
woqu DSkiot Tawhas'toh tac) avece aonesive bay Madde bw Beste ki 
‘abGtind Peete ga ald teed Yixegety wGiew chests bak Fale’ au aut 

.Oomt Retotiws seed ovad biwow Joatsres on , servos “te on Deter iro re 

wend $40 tatore ado gatyud af eeoarwe et driubino tes Wont vrrratara 
hoctotreg ULcoqerg tevode ett sur? ben of hétonexe Raw YY bombs fey tal 
&eometeneetis seeds ni varretueg of beteqquw waw FE nol sou” bits 
videnceset hivov teeta edt tadd oelmete » ylght fiw wal ont Wad? ow 
strottni! aa? to GL solsosd caolsing Add Yo Hebden attow sit axotreg 
$and gabivers ,esdurati heabvet w'iittad ,.a LOL “Vaniio \ooR’ oo fae 
ead oF Mont asiom ,Toktaotiqn? YI to qLoaeraxe xwyuth he breHe" 
bas hetiupet ots ebooy oct to hdw xot SHberuG TetvoliraG off YeL Koa 
fuommbul to fhbde e'xotlon ott wo wel tey “oque eae rene orao tan oh 
eh ma af oradd , (fom to texetoe tune As vorg gilt we ont tedttoue) 
“Hole vot gz Cdexonset od ttaite ida ane ‘waa — — 
‘ish eR AGA LET ose * £ se yb  eeogts 
“gsid “to gaihatY wate Fauld bios ow batota anchace ar wae? in ty 
glee" ain a Wale 88 tiylow taeligam oi? teutkge af Prude ‘tals 
* ——— atte * ‘te Plow ——— —* asa 


ih fe spat y hoy ea —* 

















a ed Pe } a ee basil ahi a 
RATES CRD : eg ay * by Sf Z PRR 


judgment entered in favor of defendant on his set-off of $148, 37 
plus $75 expended hy defendant to rewove the stoker, making a 
tetal of $223.37. 


JUPGHRNT REVEKGED AkD JUDOMENT ENTERED 
Ik FAVOR OF DHEFENDANT ON HIG SBT-OFF, 


MeSurely, ?. J., and Matchett, J., coneur. 
































a: sige 


tetote ait oven 


toad ini Wives 





ti Seay ek A wa eae AY 


« CR EN 





Bed lor GSeGea veh Cale eee 


a. 4 
eae 


———— — oe —— ve a 
Witesotown Bae Cakete oat dant oes 
eye er ee el ee 
it die ‘Baaheune ex tuenks 9 
— Be eee weed i sel wE Peed 
bay"; itt tala 0 ie ie 
— —— ay th eae — ua Eres af 5 * 
Fie wi — 
— iY 314 





Rie ae 





Roun * eh 


— wiiohaee bute ko tantow —— i 
— —— — waa at “tg Pune’ — 


—— — PRT 





56417 








G, PHACY RYAD, ) ) 
Defendant in rr /\ 
va. | mG, —E COURT 
ANBA SILVSRMAR, be cron 
TROQUOIS AUTO INGURANGE UNDYRYRITERS, ! 
Plaintiff in Error. ) 


270 1.A. 620° 


UR, JUSTICE G'COBKOR DELIVERED THE OPINIOK OF THR GOUT, 


March 1, 1928, plsintiff brought an action againat the dee 
fendant te recover 9987 claimed to be 4ue him on aecount ef hie 
autemobile having been struck and damaged by 4efencant's autongbile 
while waa being negligentiy driven hy ene of her servants. epteme 
der 14, 1940, thers was a fury trial «nd e verdlet and judgment in 
Plaintiff's faver for $700, Hovember 17, 1936, om execution was 
issued on the judgment and returned? the next day, mo part satis- 
fied, the bailiff stating he was umeble to find the fgefendant er 
any of her property upen which to levy the writ. cn the fellewing 
day, Beovember 19th, an affidavit for a garnishee swanens wae filed 
in whieh the “Iroqueie Underwriters, Inc., a corporation,” was 
nsmed as garnishee, and summons issued, On the next day the writ 
Was served on the garnishee. November 25th the numed garnishee 
filed a snecial appearance. Nevewber 24, 1930, an order was en- 
tered giving leave to the garnishee to file an “affidavit in supe 
port of motion." (What the motion was doce net appear.) December 
3, 1930, an affidavit rae filed by the wemen to whem the bailirr 
delivered the garnishee sucmenn, as chown by his return, by which 
it was apparently sought te show that the leaving of the sumons 
with her was not proper service. 


The next that appears in the record is an affidavit fer 


® garnishee sumone filed January 25, 1932, in whieh the *Irequeis 


/\ 
tuo — oh soem 
sooabEH 1, 


— ed ye 
7 iad unn eo sozareg aut — 53 1 2 oun it ie 


~eh oft gankage avldoa ae teyrerd Wiltataly ,O8@L .2 dete : 
eid to dnote to che awh o¢ of hemtate TOG ceveoet oF dmmbact 
 etidewstun a inetietet cf bepameb Sne dowtde wood gatvad otdenetun — 
~motqed .agaerres tof To say yt povkuh vitaegh igen gated dia a : 





at teomghat Seo tolfvev « bas tebe? veoh « daw oredt —— eh 
fae Woksogeme aW ,O8SL TE tedmeess  .0Ote tet cone? aftikeatate 
widen Piey om ,ywh txow oft heuketer Bee dxomphet edt ne bowiot 

#o Sinha teh af! ball of olden eaw of qaliete ‘Veetied edt holt 
 GAlwolhet 9At sO .ehaw ent yvel ef Hobe Seyi: yttoqets cod te van 
| ROLE naw aaosaue sodetetoy # tT ChvadlTYs ax ,AOL TedmevOR ,yeb 
eae ek coremcae a, ant axed beens hed adowper2® peg Hetse ok 
tur eslt Gad fxm ost AO Jbeunat amosomn hee ,oodatem an semen 
Stiatuney homed one AGES todewret .eedetares eff no bevier oe 
80 sar cwehue mm ,O6er 88 todas von Oe Mrtesgqe fakoogs o — 
— ak sivabsYie” me SLL ot bare Lemay ett o2 eveet qatety deres 





venting ade mosir of mamow ould yd Holl? ear dtvab ete cm oe * 





emonmwe add te — s#t jan? wode of tdguoa yltaeteqan: | 
eolvion taqote tom sor ee tte 





a etoupent! ade doddw nk ,SE0L ,08 yuemmel dott — mi a 








Hiieved (.rwoqqe tox euoh aaw aotvon ett tad?) "molten to -~ — 


dotaw yd ytwiet ald x mvode ae jenqmem satiekotey all penevkieh 


tel diveabitts ou at bicoet aclf nt eeesqen deste fhe ve er : us 





Auto Insurance Underwriters® is named se garnishee. A summons 
Was issued on the sane day and served on the garvinhee by the 
bailiff. February 8, 1932, apyears an affidavit made by the 
person with whow the bailiff left the summons as shown by hia 
return, with the apparent view of skewing that the service was 
not good. On the same day the garnishes, irequois Auto Ineurance 
Underwriters filed a special appearance, and on February 9th the 
felloving order appears in the record: “Garniahee LAOQUOTS AUTO 
ING, UNDERVRITSAS A GORP., aneweres no funds, Pisintiff centeste 
anewer.” kareh 25rd following the garnishee filed an anewet® in 
Which it set up tat it was net indebted to Anna Silvermen and had 
ne funds or property in ite possession belonging te her, April 
16th there was « trial before the court witheut « jury, en the 
anewer of the garnishee, The court found the lasues againat the 
garnishee and assessed the damages at $720.80. Judgnent was en- 
tered om the finding and an appeal prayed and alicwed te the 
garnishee, May 13, 1932, the judgment was reduced to $700. The 
garnishee filed ite appeal bond which was approved and on June 7th 
ite bili of excections or stenographie report ef the proseedings 
hed on the hearing on the garnishes's answer, 

There are a number of irregularities in the reverd and con- 
tentione made by the plaintiff which we think it unnecessary to 
mention because we base our dee! sien on the merits of the case, 
The garnishee eontends that the affidavit for garnishee ewomens 
"ia false unon ite face by the records of the Gourt or ie ehern te 
be false by evidence presented to the trial Court;" that the 
execution iseued on the Judament against Anna Silverman was Free 
turned the —— Leeueéd by order of counsel Tor plaintiff, 


ang that cuch «a return is wisutherized an4 doer net warrant the 


court in fesuing corniahese suemens, The 4iffieulty with thie 


Sy tie ‘ 
4 J 


wt 
Ym 


atomme A .wetelureg aa homme ed “quadizwasbad eonewwent eek 
edd vd eouetowng edd a9 beetes hae yb oman edt ao hewenl ane 
ast 4d phem tivebi tn aa eemogen GEOL .8 qeorgiet: ——— 
ais yf aroun ae anon Gat Ptod Trkihed edt oode dale — 
naw gotvies ent cad gabveda “te weby aia andiniell athe eee 
penetwe nt ava alooperl ,sedaianwy eat Yok omen ould ‘no «boog Jou 
eat Ava Prawns ae bie «Penertes gma iatongn a sear eros irerebad 
 OPSA ‘gTowpeat sosetemd® stxoows odd at —E ——8 pubvotion 
ateeties Viitelel  atayt oa ecawene ,.T900 A GROTTO - * 
: at towane mw Sot? sevtedorey ant gavotte? MEt-detet “.geweRe 
; hed Bae GkoTSVEL! acdh of boddetw ton uew 92 gaat qa tend) | — 
‘fioee soot Oo gatgnedead eetnenasée ef h at Uesoqeny 6 ena ' wll i 
a @ aeedtie deus ont ateted tanre — daw overt avon 
ode teadess eecwel sa% heme? fraed eal eedeberag ede te aewene 
one S08 Jurabel .OR,OLE se shgnenh e8f Seamanne’ ‘has onde han 
erie ot bowels hae beyere igsqgn an han yatbatt ef mo beget se 
eet 0004 22 Seovbor naw dapmyhat et (8kOL ,6L qa — Ps 
M89 sua m0 hae hevonnga aew tokit med Lenya eth O23 wode, ~ 
| anudhosooig see to Proqot Siiquigesete te anslteneee Woo Like. ooh Kon 
toveon et ondniween ont ao gained ot mo fast — 
* — oom 
—— — dodde Wtratase ese yd oheamnettaed” 3 
.yeexe off To utitse ¢6% Go tobe (eeh eye aaad a6 seseosd tottemm , 
ee aociebercag tot fteeht's te dd 20st ebastnod ome beeriy sift) ‘ 
od tiwadth el te txmed Ont Yo RbreoeT Ani YM ome't Wek tq we NE HET 
| was tents * teased Karat oad 09 Satnnnare seams Ne su BeT 6 
a9T Baw nawte vl? exch tantons sasmahwt sft ne hades! mobo 2 
— tot Lonnwen to aebte yt Renews atew 4. ~ * 























contention is that it is not berne out hy the reeord, There in 
nothing ia the record to show that the execution wars returned by 
the bailiff on the order of plaintiff's counsel. And the state- 
ment by gouneel for the garnishee that “The feet is, that ne ef- 
fort te find any preperty of the defendant is shown to have heen 
made for more than two yeures before the writ of garnisiment under 
consideration wae issued,“ is aise aot warranted by the record, 
The return of the sheriff states that he wee unable te find the 
defendant, Anna Silverman, or any property on whieh te Levy the 
exeaution. There ia no evidence to the oontrary, and we must 
therefore assume that the balll?f 414 bie duty ae sown by his 
return, 

A further ecntention 1s made by tae garnishee that *Gar- 
nisament cannet be based on unliquidated damages.* YTsis nas been 
held te be the lew but has no apgliication te the feets ae disclosed 
by the record before ua beenuse the recerd here shows that the 
damages are liquidated, vie., the $706 judguent rendered in piain- 
tiff'a favor against Wiverwan. 

A further point is made that the defendant, Ania Silverman, 
failed to appear on the trial of the damage suit against her; that 
her failure was contrary to the express terms of the lusurance poliey 
issued to her by the garnishee; and that she could not recover on 
the insurance policy, sonsequently plaintiff cannot do se by gar- 
nishment. In : Len, 259 IL). App. 643 (affirmed in 346 
Thl. 137) we held that where an autowobile insuranee poliey ineuring 
against liability required the assured to aid tue ineuranee company 
in securing evidence and procuring attendance of witnesses where a 
Claim is sade ageinet the sesured, and the ageured failla te do se, 
and a judgment is obtained againet him, there being a breach of the 





insurance policy by the assured the company eainet be garnisheed by 
a Judgment ereditor, slthough the insurance policy, if the ascured 





ee 


al axed? ,dtopss off ed dou eoted Jot ah 32 dadt ab eal ansd ao⸗ 
—— — 
~$tate ott at .feeewen e'Tiidaielg te sebte edt ao TRithad add 
ote aw dod yeh Mat Qa deckt ane beseg ec) OR Lennon, go doom 
mood avo of avails 2h daedawted ect Yo YEGOTE Gam AMET OF dee — 
 tebew geamee ley de dee off axoled axeey ood acdt ore. chine 
vitoars ody yd badaoicay dom cole of “,heowak ene agdiat ® 
(tt hak) oF ehsemn aww ad tard anteta Tiinede edt to auutes od? 
le oto a oO ORE I ee — ak tanh 
dies ow See \viendiee etd of aanebive on ot eae at anlage 
aid gf awosin se yhed atk bh WELiad ad? add oanionn ore ene 

















Fs ; A iA SS SR — Nia 


— snes — ond + chen, ad iene ae arte” 
dees Beh eit "ahgonh betelupling ne boaad od tangas tanasekn 
Anmetoets a ion? odd of moitantique om sad sud. mak aa od 04 ted 
ait tans exqin orOd bro‘eT ost Somend am axed HteROT. gut YM 
aitiela at 
| TONLE Pakage Lewet — 
sMOMATLLE and yiawhuetoh stit dere obem. of daheg wetewwt Ao) 
taal pte Jonluge Shue ggomwh od? Ie tate pad oranges of dette 
: — soptvasl Ons io weed seetens 948 of yrettans saw otto? ron 
| Rs eveneS ton blues erie sant tam yedatatan mt Wh wedot, dame 
“toy Uf oa ob tons Mhtaiaty yhioaupeanps .yelieg seasty 
Obs wh HeatTe) E90 .qah ofl OHS OLA we gobtaasied ot. dapecie 
ptitios? yollog sonaquant elidgnetum ae windy test bho w (ta, tex 
ees gouatusad ont Sle of Hexeunw on? Hetlepes, — “a ; 
# ernst O@enoadiw le evagbastia yahsesetq haa spashive gatty 
198 ob OF aLtat herwane ead hae ,homwene ony toakage odem, 
add to loner! « gated ezodd , ake fentane —4 ton * 
yd bpeds Linton wd Jeane ‘yeenes Lonel beweee ods ee we fon, 
betvess oft th ,yoslon osnstwent eas guest La cwoninene | re ' 





























4 


had Lived up to its previsionsa, would eover plaintiff's eleaim. In 
that case Allan, who had an autowoblie ineurance policy, injured 
plaintiff whe brought suit againat him. The insurance company took 
charge of the defense of the onse, an the policy provided, wut 
Allen, whe was the only witness an4 the only one who knew about the 
ease, refused to help the insuranee ooupany or to attend the trial, 
We held this breached the policy and the plaintiff, who had ob- 
tained a judgment aguinst allen growing cut of an automobile acci- 
dent, could sot maintain garnisiaent egainet the insurance campany. 
This holding was affirmed by the Guprese court. 

In the inatant case the record discloses that the defendant 
fons Gilvernman, owned an autowabdile caverad by an insurance policy 
iesued by the garnishee. The autowobile was used by her in her 
business and was being driven by her son ot the time plaintiff's 
autemoblie was damaged as & result of the eellision secasioned by 
the negligence of the driver, ‘the son died before toe trial. Sis 
mother, the defendant, was not present at the time of the aecident 
and knew nothing of how it oceurred. On the heering of the gar- 
nishnent proceeding there was evidence te the effeet that on the 
hearing of the damage case several witnesses testified that kre, 
Silverman had admitted te them that her son, who was driving her 
ear at the time of the collision, was using it for her business at 
that time. When the dawage case went to trial counsel fox the 
garnishee represented Mam the defendant, Anna Gilveruan, and at 
the close of plaintiff's case, counsel for dafendant, who repre- 
sented the insurance company, discovered tuat re. Silverman was 
hot in court and then attempted to withdraw from the case, but the 
court would not permit it. There was no suggestion that Mre, 
Silveraan would have been able to testify to anything, or to have 
rendered any service to the insurance company, that would have bee 
of any value in defending the damage case, The evidence further 


al ,thede «'iphtweady teres bdwow ,paeleivong eth oc cw bovld hea 
boris ,wiicg evamsexent ¢iidoeoton oe bed ode. yond ta sven tat 
seed Yiegwioe Geamaveet ed ts deatege Shoe digaend ede, Tikealade: 
set ,debivor, witog att se ,enee esd. Le easiteh. ote aatad | 
od? tts. waed ode ona yhow até ban soeatiu, yhae. ed ew oom yaakta i 
teiey ot Leeda ad Wo Yuaqane eosegeas ety gies of. boonten, 2am, 
afo bai oi ,Tiddatels ty bas yullog oat Adoned aldy ding oW, 
~ ies gitdeseris sa t9 suo galwory me Lid, Padeae Ionswhet, « Demat 
Cee FONE TET OH JeAeRe sontadotey Bhetadom peo 
tabs ee ef8 dae ageaionih beeent, ait —V —— — ne) 

















si nteobndey, omit et fa, awe. tee ee, a J a senate ud 
(eS fepaiaeoes amdsi ise ot —* 7 byamsh an de: ae 
e4k , dais go e4e'ted Sold aoe adt . ,cevinh edt To somradign x ot 
snasiege ott to omht oud be, daweetg.tom ene stags tw nbs sh twa 
— ae Vo gatbaecdt ade a0 .howmrene #2 00d Ye gaisson woe ba 
Mt KO dais sooVio. otf ef opachlve sav oped? galbeoesoty dusatieta 
| RR fed Fo LRISEST atasoRdle deTeVES oo Remedy Jo, pmieond 
i tok BARERh asm oie ,aoe “eat duct ope, of bettinbs das, aeomevepB: — 
— seouteud 194 tot 25 guiew sew ywoimehtes od? Ye emt edd tm, veag 
| grid ak ieaanue dada’ ef ¢aer oape spaced, ssl2, aoc oy a a nd 
Ae Dae, MmOMe VL Aaah CARD ART) OMe meee be Semen 



























tart ot eo yyatedone oF —X an — ' — wow re * J 
wed vad bhnge taut — sommrwemt aiid Of 






shows that at the time of the ¢ollision Mre, Silverman lived in 
Chicago, and that counsel representing her and the Insurance com 
pany communicated with her, The ease wae continued from time to 
time and counsel advieed her every time the couse warn to be tried, 
by writing her. But afterwards kra, Silverman went to Kock Ieland 
and cerrespendence was had between her and the garnishee's counsel 
about the case. Hay 24, 1930, she wrote from Rock Island to 
counsel, stating that her sen, whe was involved in the accident, 
had died; tiat her health was bad atid that she could net come to 
Chiecage for the trial until Auguet 1, 1930. May 31, 1936, she 
again wrote from the same place to counsel, acknowledging a letter 
from him and atating that she fould be at counsel's offiee September 
18, 1930, The couneel who then reyresented Kre. Silwerman testified 
that he had a conversation with her at his office shout July 1, 1930; 
that she was trying to make arrangements te go to an o14 people's 
home but assured him she would be at the trial on September Lath; 
that he wrote her a letter Geptember 15th, whieh he addressed to 
her Chicago ad ‘reas and also te Rock Talend, teliing her the case 
wae set for trial en the 14th; that Mrs, Silverman did net come to 
his office Septecber 14th, and after plaintiif's teetiseny was all 
in he discovered that lire. Silverzan was net in the eourt room, ond 
he then asked ieave te withdraw, which leave was denied; he testified 
that om the trial of the damage ease, “We didn't effer any testimony 
because we didn't have any, jire, Amna Gliverczen was the only wit- 
ness; that he 4i4 net cross-examine any of the witnesses or argue 
the case to the jury. 

We think the facts, as above stated, do not bring this case 
within the rule laid down in the Sehneider case, In the Sehnetjer 
ease the assured, who was the defendant, knew all about the accident 


and was the only witnese the Insurance eompany could produce, but 


ad bev anger tie sn caine up ceiiah itt ait apa 


ate Sonetuenl S83 bam wd yeVROROTEOT Lowauey tent hee een S10 
69 OGkF meh Roowkiaes aaw Gane ea? weed Abby Heteo hem yoy 


belts of of sew gaan add gery yeove ted healvie Pesnweo ban eke 
baefel foot of grow nmmveritl .24% aheewtedte gol Sent gatoinw yt 


. stance eeurilarey atid pow wc averted Soot aaw conbhnggaertes bite 
gf beekel deck met etesw ude ,OOeL {bo yall .onae ade Guete 
 fuehinge: et? al bovtownl aaw onw , nee ted dale gabiade (Koni 


ot omen tem hives ede tailed baw bed waw dddeed tod dele phate’ Baa 

| ode Obl Lk yw \UhOL [x onium Live Lebes oid to? eyed itd — 
“‘ettel » galghelvenina , fovaned oF sonky tach oH mort etorw atone 
wodmyged avi itc a isaxuos te od Riwew oti tery qatteta has wkd sie 
beoltiteed maroy lia eral hegrenetqey aie? oa Koaneoe aff  OTet vee 
{Agee woduntqee ite Latte ent ta oe bhiiew wie! abel hour ted ome 





:080L ,£ ytNe suede sotto eft ta cod AEEY nolsteers 
a sigoeq bLo ow oF oy of &leome pate golem OF gat 





os beccoubte of retin 0X “edab aye! <otaed e ted ovote off Saat 
eben oF vor pattie? ,bnetsl deeh of eke bie weet! ba ogee ted ‘xe 
of wmed son Dh memevLle .ave dod pee oe wo Sotad oT Sou! aw 


the saw Yaonkteot a'Yiktalety tot'te bee ,wOL twin tyes poet eld : 
bse ymoot tron ead mt gon cow aanrevith veual Sastry hoxevoodlhh eH Hh 
bortkeeed bi ;beised baw ovmet co kitw \wotebst lw of ovaed bhdew awed ait 
yaout feed xno cette # nkls OW jonne opatiod oar Yo Ledxe oxff ne all 





efie <Lhe oi? caw mexterete® sak vet . yom ove Yahi ow ewan 


owas to kenmeatiw of? te th enknans ator ‘fou Dib om tan? *peeen | 


* a ee 


ge eh te 





evan wide yalrd ton ob ,hoteda eveda ae ,udoey oat wi 
Erie ont AX .esao TobLedtine sist aa wie Bist tre ah i ie 


 gaobioex ee gwode Lin whet viuhneteb od Ge¥ ote — EXR = ae 






tad soubor bives — soma reai odd tad ial | 
say aid hts SS ae omer. — Re 





in the inatant case all the evidence showed that the ansured, Ure, 
Silverman, knew nothing about the ease ond there is no thoring that 
she eould have bean of any agsistance to the Insuran¢ge company in 
any way. 
The judgment of the Kunicipal court ef Chieage ie affirmed, 
AFFIRMED, 


KeSurely, ©. T., and NMatehett, J., concur, 


“ ——— * oa ta onan nt toe | 

























SiR Ne AAA. AIS RNY aD 








OM a a aD Manet ew! inte 
ARS SAREE Wn aR ae a 9 I le aah: 
RRR Pan ee eo ee eHisdagel bev : | 

ttm onli AONE pais! ol iia ea: aa i in 
get gt. ig a. TRE gate ce a Pe daniel Bini j * evs 
eA A BHigenioaninee oy Lia pk ale” oth “ whee 
ee ee ee 











a — mat RNa a 
J 








ee a a —* 
— — we, 


— 


wil apg! —J ies See ee ee ee 
fer heh Ae We dee a ee “hae ae 
ge Mee ae Sula eats 4 

Oy Mendon” A Bowe aw. Ge 
Chae , one tel ae ie une * in * 
ae aloure —— naan: Bt Sake: (ee x 


fin tee — 





ö x 
oo ee oe Dee aise ae RAPE Wye sam 
. aa a Jy la ie ot — — A au a 
me Se Ra Wal! Rose! PORWR heheh, — 6 


Ce BH 


Hiei WL Yio soa wh hehe weie Yen arene es 
PRD AGI Pe Wale ue ig anti gel Ree eye ase “gigi won 
eke oy eg” Pid ian ewe —— ead cote ai 


Fee — uti a “we Payne om ring ounetunst bone 
’ 4 SPF b 2 Sn batt ¥ * i 





36475 


THE PROPLE OF THK STATS OFF 
ILLINOIS, 





Defendant in 
va. 


JOSEPH MOCH, 
Plaintiff in Brror. 





BR, JUSTICK O'CORNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT. 


On August 15, 1932, defendant was arrested and an informa 
tien filed charging that on July 31, 1932, the defendant, in the 
City of Chicago carried a revolver concealed on or about his per- 
son. A plea of not guilty was entered, a jury waived, the cause 
tried by the court, and after hearing the court found defendant 
guilty and sentenced him to confinement in the county jail for a 
term of six montha. Defendant prosecutes this writ of error, 

The evidenee groduced on tae nearing is shown in the bill 
of exceptions in marrative form and is very brief, frou which it 
appears that John Gisk, called by the People, teatifiled that he 
was @ police officer veatding at No. 4792 Archer avenue, Chicage, 
and was attached to the 19th District; that shortly after noon 
on July 21, 1932, while he was on his way home from the 19th 
District, he saw defendant, wie was serogs the street in front of 
4787 Archer avenue; that defendant wae locking beckwards, that his 
hends, face and clothes were smeared with bloed and that he held 
in the palm of his right hand a 25 Automatic Celt, which defendant 
handed over to witness whom he recognized as a police officer; that 
the officer asked him whatbhe was doing with the gun and defendant 
replied, "They tried te hold me up." “I just shet a wan in self- 
defense, and I carried the gun for proteetion.” The defendant 
testified that he handed the gun to the police officer whom he 
recognized and “that the gun was aiways in hie hand." This is 


all the evidence in the record, and following the evidence in 


* i 


CUE — 
ae. aN — ERA 


REO 





* stoned | at Tibtabel® 


Sak Oe APA psa Fiz J 


ay 
PES 
2* 
fees 


.T2UG) SHY Yo MOLM240 ANT GANMVIUEG AQMKOO'O SOITAVG aa 


gh P: at ae Peery ui a8 & 
epergial om base hageetza sev tnahne teh wseee ak 24 ae 


ef? @i ,fuabae’teb of? ,RECL . Ie viel mo sadt gakgteste be ct —— 
19g @i4 tuada <0 me ba Lagaoc xeviover s holtta0 ope io te — 





eeuae ont , de wr hew yuh 6 ,hextas aew wiles ton ‘to note A . 
. doehoeteh Samet frseo acd gatrood — baa —R wad ed Gi” 
& ter Stet vitiioe ott xi tanmenttacs of mie hooneaues be ety 


: — — 
ee ——— — ——— — ——— xia te — 





corie “te 3 x 
fild edd at ar oꝛls —E ase ao beouborg sonbive: ont 
$k Moise sot? ,Yeiad ytor of bao * xtas raua al saoticeone — 
gat Hedd BelNidesd ,sivoeS ane yd bettas .dakd aust decid atnogqe 
(— eganks jonmeve edota S20) 0% ta yntitaoe eeoitio solfoq « new 
acon totte elevede ted ;Potvee ager ost oF hodontta aew bam 
ACL oft most smod yaw ahd ao naw od eltaw REL fs ot a0 
_ toon? ni toervée ond asotba ane oor ,daabasteb was ou sfointata 
4 etd tad? ,chrawisad gakioei saw —E dato pete va xedexa ‘park 
bio om dant daw boold asiw hevwsme oxew eediols bas soe? sabnod | 
| srahasted siotiw ,sfo0 ofdamoted a2 a barceuth figs aki Yo ming ex? x 
“gest pteoltte eolleg a ea heskagoset od mote weet iw o? seve bebasd 
i fuehas teh bas * owe Aoiw gatos aew eddtane md of todas took tio ont 
4 etfee at sam @ tele deut I * ay ea Bos ot betzd war · — ——— 
| tavhao'ted ext *Hekfosterq ret muy ood ‘betteas I baw ooneted 
of mow rseivie oottog eit of — ad bobsad od deat ——— 






Pe ee ee 


the bill of exceptions, the court certifies “the following propo- 
sitions of law te the Appellate court and answers same in the 
affirmative: 

*1. Can a Court find the defendant guilty of earrying con- 
ecenled weapons if from all the cilreumatances and evidence in the 
case it is logical to presume that the defendant had a gun con- 
cealed on or about his person iumediately before his arrest er 
at any time on the day the defendant is charged with earrying eon- 
eealed wespons? 

"S. Gam the Officer without secing the gun coneealed on the 
person of the defendant or witheut any reasonable or probable cause 
Search and arrest a defendant for carrying concealed weavons?* 

We do net understand it isa the proper practice to submit 
propositions of law in a criminal case. Gee, 61 of the Practice 
act, which has to do with propositions of law, applies only te 
civil cases where a jury hae been waived by the parties, But in 
any view of the case, we tiink the preonositions were net applicable 
to the facts as disclosed by the evidence, and therefore were ia- 
proper to submit to the trial court, the first preposition ia: 
Could the eourt legally find the defendant guilty of carrying con- 
eesled weapons if from all the evidence Lt was logical.to presume 
that the defendant had “a gun concealed on er about his person ime 
mediately before hia arrest or at any time en the day def endant* 
Was arrested. And the second proposition was, in effect, whether 
the officer, without secing tne gun concealed on the person of the 
éefendant, or without any reasonable or probable cause, believing 
he was carrying a concealed weapon, could seareh and arrest him, 

We think the evidence shows that the gun was not concealed 
by the defendant at the time he wan arrested because the evidence 
is that defendant had the gum in his hand at the time he was ar- 


rested, There is no evidence whatever that it was concealed, 





soqotg gatwoite? ara evtittess fumes ont (nao Sewanee ha sete oat 

ad at secant adiladicad hate tahoe Senkioais with we wes 2 —— 

svas aanaru⸗ 

ads — * tins 4 sua 00 I h ode bak? sand « bel gg sa * 

ode nk epaehtve Reus wedustamente oad fie mex? 2 ‘enoqgaew hefave 
~Too tig « hak fowheeleah alt tact eanmegq oF fen taot et ak ooss 

tT taovie aid ototed efetethbomut nowtag ata — 16 a6 betase 

_ ste gaderseo sth he beytasy af taahge tok om web ont no tals ‘qe to 
Faneaeo belsso 


wg tire — temee 


ott xe beLavence ap “edt ‘yates tweet Ie aaaitto oad ne * 





4 


ae 







eaves otandoty 30 Se oor ag = suostste 0 snaban teh sat 1. 
We Be” tow \ 


‘ "Sanegeor beLaee.r09 arexreo 192 daabe'tob a rome baw ae ; 
— Of aotsoasy — elt at aa Dunderehon gen om oe oF “ 
ooltgexs, ⸗ te £2,988 2080. iantasay, a By wal te anal sieoeo 

. giao ao Liqgne hing al %0 ausit inoqerg addiw oh ot ad onde vies 
_ fh aud mol stng and a hoview need east veal. a smite ones {trio 


ae a 


—— jon si9w angie heaqory ait sath ew ana, sult * —9 * 


“mk Grew Stetotesd? his — — oat we bee 4 eke os toa? os a 
ae hic sy * Bad Pe 


aad noltivegatg 3 jax. oat siw99 Amine one * tbo oF teqora 


~ 89 aetxxa to xt cæAcm banbae tob ois pat. — pein ont ‘bivod 
aaa of Lan tpol gaw #2 semmbive * ite pont ut rrocnew tezaee 

i — —V—— aia suoda 30 He beLeconen 03 a het fuabaetod * ent gut — 

_" teahow tab yah ould ae out x ts xe feorte id etna ; 
; - _sedtese Aoora⸗ — —— baooes ate baa sheraowta @ a 


P ous te, 898 HINTHG ang no bsfengace is ons acises fact aw rise. oat 
_gatye dod sonune pldadete se. ofdaneneee ye, —*9* 








£ 


ber A 2d a oe? eae ae 
em faoTis bag dozepa fines ,noqeow be.Leoonon & anes * oa ia 


beLonence, (Fon sew, BH, od ‘ads yoda sonmbtve, ote dake 9W ha vet 
Sonehive eit) sauened Boingris any oi outs ost $e geen aap vo 
ar Wika” HOME OF St POT EP * Ae. tomboy 


tiie 











The officer testified that the defendant hed the gun that he 
handed cver te the officer in the palm of hin right hand, 

Hclding as we do that the evidence shoves the weapon 
Was not concealed, the two questions are not pertinent in 
eny view of the low, Ginee we hold that a11 the evidence shows 
the weapon wes not concealed on the person of defendant, and 
the judgment must be reversed for that reason, it is unnecessary 
to —* the contention that the venue was net sufficiertiy 
proven. 

the judgeent of the Municipal court of Chieago is 
reversed, 

TUDGHERY REVERSED. 


MeSurely, *. J., amd Matchett, %., soneur, 


ete edd Be” 
Mobive of Sail? ob 


yon ote anoltieeup owf 465 (55) 


=f Sie tedt blod ew sonlh 3 


4h le seeteq ed? ag belaeonoo = 9 «> 
i) o£ #2 qHoaaet Jed? cet heatevet ed fo 66 foe) 


_)\ tua sen aaw exaevy edd Jact nolsnetno. 


ek ogeotd? to Prweo Leqiolawli ed? to tase. 


TMCAUVEA TAEMOTUT 


¥ — — — 


2 — * £ , ; % 
FANEIR ROBERSON, j vw, | \ 
Appellee, 


AP?7RAL FROM SUPERIOR COURT, 
Ve 


Cook COUNTY. 
HUGO Pe TORPFER » ay J 
Appellant. 2 ¢ Q | 1. A. 62 r 


MA. PRESIDING JUSTICE GCANLAN CULIVSRED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff sued defendant in case. A jury returned a 
verdict finding defendant guilty and assessing plaintiff's damages 
at the sum of $7,000- The court required a remittitur of $1,000, 
whieh plaintiff entered, and thereupen judgment was entered for 
$6,000. befendant has appealed. 

Plaintiff's theory of fact isc that she was etruek by an 
automobile operated by defendant while she Was etending on State 
street, at or near 40th etreet, writing te board a northbound 
State street cary that while she was so standing, about three or 
four feet enst of the northbound street car track, the street car 
arrived and stopped alongside ef her, but that before she had time 
to board the ear the automobile of defendant esme from behind the 
standing street car, without any warning, and struck herg causing 
the injuries for which she sued. The accident occurred about 
seven o'clock pe me It is conceded that there is a sign at the 
eerner in question te indiente that 1t is a stepping place for 
northbound street ears.  tefendent's theory of fact is that he 
obeerved the northbound street car was making a stop at the said 
corner and he thereupon slowed down his automobile but that before 
it reached the strect oar the latter started again, and that 
thereupon he then started to pass the ear on the right, or east, 
side; that the street car had gone some distance when plaintiff 


; 
ES Fe Oe — 






Fs 
— 
* F 
— * 3 
ff 
f Gah RENE —E 2 a 


Se ee ee 
0 Yee PGR. 4a Pree) Saf 


atthe Ate er exec en 


Bi HE hc: 








tayeo aR? vo ces at 


2 demenetes Oy A onanay, Ab ARREARS Awe, α enn 
evpenad a’ Viléuiate gubeaseen bine ‘yithe dechached —— fohiney 
1000.58 — ode J 

zo hoxedos anv dsompbal, mequerendt? hoa beredns tiisataly dole 

| sheLergue set Iuome red #000498 
un y¢ dowste gow ole gad ot toet to quoed? at —— ger 
Sdut ae guttnode saw sila ofidw tashusted ya badeangs ottdenesus 
bmuoddtton « bused of pmtdtew loonie S20b nae 10 da efeoute 
to seudd duods aunih omate os eaw oda ohide dante ttao townie —28 
‘tao doorta em? giloetd cao dootda parent sos edd to tnae too? mo 
. omts hed ode oxohed dadd uv xed Xo ebkeymols buggers bon bovine 
x ‘ef? puted max? omas dnadeotoh Yo efkdemetus ot 4o0 ont bused of 
“ gabexes -qted Houtde bea «antorew yas dwedsin ateo teorsa — 
Swoda bowzus0¢ ta oT «howe orle told x0 nodusbt “ 
“oxi ta ogts # at eves? dads bobeonve of 41 oat + toolo'o ; ve ' . 
wot ooale yatqgode » ot #t dakt otstoat of aaltecup: a biter 
oat tatit af goat Lo Yrosdd B dmadmodel «ats fooRte dawoddizen 
bieo of? do qote # guides asw 22 deatde ——— tt borsendo | 











ty ¥ x 
D 


oxsked sass eu — demos ius aid mob bowela noquoredt ont ban : onze 

_ tailt dan qahege bodtede xoddet ot aso sooxde ond bode oun ah 

etuss “o eddinis of? xo tao af? enag oe au od noque: 3 oi 
Ni enilag aedw Pomedetd suon nog dal x0 doonde etd duad 10 


* —9* pe 
Re hey ots FN mee 
ot * ie Ama | fe 
* + . a 
- 12 — — — 
9 — 
— —— — baat 







“Ze 


ran eaetward, passed in frent of the street car, and directly in 
the path of the automobile, which was going north ot the time, and 
that defendant did net have time to atop bie automobile before it 
struek plaintiff. 

befendent does mot claim that plaintiff did not make out 
a prima fecic ease, but he argues that “there was a sharp conflict 
as to these two contentions, there being several witnesses for cach 
side, including the motorman and conductor ef the atreect car who 
were witnesses for the defendant. This conflict «ef contentions 
becomes important not only om the quexztion of the weight of the 
evidence, but also om questions ef inotructions and misconduct of 
plaintiff's counsel, as wili be hereinafter pointed out." Defendant 
gontends that the trial court erred in act granting defendant's motion 
for a new trisl beesuse “the verdict is against the manifest weight 
ef the evidence om the questions of the defendant's negligence and 
the plaintiff's contrivutery negligence." After a careful conciderat ton 
ef the entire evidenee bearing upon this contention we have recched the 
conclusion that we would not be justificd in sustaining the contention. 

Befendant contends thet the giving of plaintiff's inutruetion 
number ome was reversible error. The pertinent parte of the inctruction 
are ae follewst 

"The Court inwtruets the jury thet the plaintiff has averred 
im the first count of her deelaration that on the let duy of January 
1929, the defendant was the owner ef an 2323 which he vas con- 
trolling and operating im a northerly direction upon and along South 
State Street, at and near te 40th Street, public highways im the City 
of Chicago, Illinoise 

“And plaintiff has further averred that on anid date, and 
while she wae upon said South State street, at and near to said 40th 
Street, and while she was then ond there in the exercise of oré 
@are and caution for her own safety, the defendant s0 carclessly 
negligently dreve, controlled, managed and operated hia enid automobile, 
that as a direct result thereof» the suid autemobile ran upon ,against 
and struek the plaintiff * * *,. 


Defengant contends that the vicious part of the instruction is contained 


“ge 


ak ytovthh bag gta townde ees to trot mt hoasag abuawtage tu 
bers gomuks aff ty micon gnkey new Ka bew seLidemedwa ode Yo diaq oft 
#t ovoted oLidomedws eft * ag sare ovat 0% sth srabao ted ‘dnetd 
sthhimteda terete 
gue omen dou Kib VWirabeby gett mtake fou enob tmaheetee 
Jor kines qcete « eee ote” Jule womgre of tit oun soa’ suhoe 0 
dens «wh secnenthe Loveria gated eradd nntdem tato awe ones at en 
ew ten deotts only to codoudnen Sua maxetem off gaihufent gobbe 
auettnetuse Yo forgings ele  séenbaateb add sot — —* 
add te Riylow of! to nekteous ef? mo Utte doh dantroqad adams: 
‘te downer it bia anoktoieoant Yo ancbtesud me’ enle tid «dbhol) , 
—teabow et =, duu boteloy ‘teetanboted ed LEW a (toanwen ev eriolalim 
| as hom @tonabay tus gabicamp tor wt bivtey Souno Leted ott eaatar wie 3 
ditgtew daotions ott gantage of telotev sid* seuawod abst vet a —8* 
xe seNemitgas etitabmetia end 26 snotdasuy sald no egmebles 
: aol iersbiemon Ltou « wl “soumegetnon yrotwkxines —— 
est Dealesot evn ow meltmadoos etd? ving qubueed goaeblve” 
| ssol fuséneo “ont aetintad awe mh bolttoew of * e's owe * sn bai r 
mot geste md ut Yibintelg te wakviy wd? doctt wtomdined vmbnotet |” 
: fol fousvsnt edt * * dnend foot ot see * luseves amr one 
— iia ‘ 


Re 





































| on" — ———— * taut * 
pM only 
2 ses Baw sad — —— a — 


on Qoole bee 
ei ald a ; 


** ers bhi eee. 


a a a a i nes 


ese 


im the second paragraph, and hie argument io that the instruction 
limite the due care required of plaintiff to the time of the injury 
and disregards her conduct just prier te the injury}; thot defendant 
introduced evidence tending to prove that plaintiff ran in frent ef 
the moving street esr ané thereby placed herself, through her own 
negligence, in a place of danger. Ye do not think defendent's 
interpretation of the verdes of the instruction ia justified. lf 
the words in question be given a reasonable construction it is 
plain that they do met Limit the due care required of plaintiff te 
the exact time of the injury. ‘The instruction, if reuwenably 
interpreted, required plaintiff to be in the exereiae of ordinary 
Gare anc caution fer her oun eafety “while she was upom anid South 
State street." She wae upon said street from the moment thes she 
ieft the curd on the weat side of the etreet until the time of the 
accident. ‘Contentions akin to thet raised by defendant are net 
mew. In the celebrated eave of Ge & Ae Ke ‘ie “Oe ve Fishers 142 
Thle G14, an instruetion complained of contained the fellowing 


language (p. 624): 


“If the jury believe, from the evicence, that the wate. 
tiff, ehile in the exercise of ordimary care, was injured by or 
eonsequenee of the negligence of the defendant, as charged in cho” 
—B————— or either ome of the counts thereof, then you should 
find the defendant guilty." 


The ¢efendent complained that the instruction omitted the requirement 
of care on the part of plaintiff just prior to the accident, but the 
Supreme court said (p. 625)8 

"It is claimed thet the inatruction requires of the plain- 
tiff the exercise of ordinary care at the particular point of time 


when the injury was received, only, and omits the requirement of 
eare previous *5* ane therchky excluder from consideration previous 





ects of Le aren materially contribut to the The word 
athe! Boone aan seem Se wheteneutior imply 
sone 1 ee = gy net ressonably have 
regard otherwise ‘than ae —— to the whole series ef cire 


R. renee’ in the entire transaction. ‘¢ have on several 
— *— inte ed the phrase ‘at the time,’ found in an instruction, 
—— on t¢ the entire transaction under examinotione (Lake 
chore chigan Southern Re (See ve Jobusens, 156 Tlie 6415 
ta ¥. “lean 137 id. 276, fhe plaintiff was crowded off 





apisoreteund odd Gad? ef sremmgee wid bon gitgetget)sd beoooe ocd mb 

cokes oot Ro ombt odd od Tktmtaks Yo hextuvex exe owe odd agiahe — 
Iashrw Red doald Exnbed od OF votrG Foul, soudaun xd adsegeMLh hem 
bo dort al ane WEIniaky Sods overq of aAbbeod pensive hoomboagns 
awe vod dpuorwsd «Rivwrset soomly dowd vas oo Sonmte aakves git, 
wtinchootel: att gar ob of «segneh Do eondap, wo mb sonnet saee 

\ Qt abosMigawh af mobénemsenh ast Xo. ebsow ade te sobs nde 

WET uviccuncnnes efdsqesset a covig of mp kd agate nh. abun ns 

e? Valisiatqg to bentapes oveo owh sald thebt —* J 
















— owe a * — 
gniwo Sto? on? tambstaey to bemtesgwen mebiounioat me hheLtk 


wthate oft Geli goonies. oe mots ¢ Lied eC gem es 
et oo ty Soeuhet enw —— — ty ads: 


Gari as 


$ 


“te 


or unavoidably fell eff of the ear while he was standing on its 
platform or steps. if his being im that place was not, under 
the olreumstanees, the exercise of ordinary Gare, then he wae not 
injured ‘while in the exereise of ordinary care,’ ae required by 
the invtruction as a condition preeedent to a right of recovery, 
ami seo the instrustion is broad enough to inelude the supposed 
eontributery negligenes that it is claimed in exeluded by it. But 
if there be any defect in the inetruction im thing regard, it is 
most eured by the ninth inetruction fer appellee, and in 
instructions Se Oy A2e 1B, 205 Rl, RB Bae Bb, 2 e 23, 29 and 30 
given for appellaet.* (Italics ouree} 


in lake Shore & Uichigan Southern Rye Cos ve Johmgen, 155 lle 641, 
65203, the court snid?t 


"It is also seid, that the inetruction confined the 
attention of the jury te the question whether or not the plaintiff 
was in the exerecice of due care at the precise moment, or 
when the earg struck hime This is hyperceriticianu, 

a» "at the times® as used in the inetrustion, refer to the 
trausaution, or acries of vircumetances, from tie time 
plaintiff renched the traeke to the time when he wae injured, 
ieaving it to the jury te determine whether ho used cue care be lore 
he stepped upon the uneccupiecd teack and while he etood there. If 
thie vere not a0, the defvet was euved by several of the defendant's 
inatruotions, whieh required the jury to find that plaintiff was 
exereising due care both before aud at the tlae of the uceldent, 
both while he was em the track and before he went upon it.” 4 
else Louthan ve Chignge Uity y+ Gere 293 lile \ppe Silty SidqGe 


in Binney ve Village of Herlgms 167 Tlie Appe 359 36, the epurt 
said: 






*The first instruction given at the instance of appellee 
is not subject to the oriticiam urged. The decleration alleges 
that appelice wes in the exereise of due care while passing om and 
— Balke The requirement in the instruction t appellee 

4 have been in the exereise of due gare at the time of the 
accident, and as charged in the declaration, ¢id met limit the 
necessity of the exercize of due care by hor within tee narrow a 


COMPAS » 
In aS @ AOUsds 
court said? 


*The second inatruction is eriticiced by counsel alaoe 
They say the rule is, that although the plaintiff may have been in 
the exereiee of ordinary eare fer hic owm nefety at the time of 
the injury, still he wae not entitled to recover wmless he was in 
the exercise of ord dare to foresee and avoid danger before 
the accident. ‘They contend the instruction limite the time the 
— Was required te use due carve to the moment when he was 


xk Yards ve Godfrey, 198 Ille 283, 295, the 















jurede This interpretation of the sxpreneion, ‘y he wig in 
— Seercige of ordinary enre fo: ‘ety,’ ie too narrow. 
oA Was Passed on ee apotllant’s contaen- 

tion in Chicago en? Alton tp 141 “Ale G4. 


— transaction. (1 ‘Mere and 
mp LOL Ills 232+) Sesidesy 





































ee) @ ani*®ente sav of ohicwy cme eft te. Yee: dite: yisie hora 
“eobeg qiem env goede jmid of wuded gid Yo veges 
jon. cam of — ——— eed ee ‘te wadotense odd geeoniads ae 
‘Qo hutlapet ax 'yonae Yremloxe Yo salevene o¢ mi alice? be 
_ «etercoot te daigin a of de Segemy meh Eh: mel ae eoidawtte 
oo Beeaggay edt ebadoal 92 Govons baoud at mitouttamt of? oe 
full«éi ed babukexs af Oomiale a2 dh. dasid —— —2 
gh #2 mk woiterciant ee wt i > Ye o¢ ee, 
, ee Bete geal ion sane ak matsauns yet, ‘“inin eta Ys Sree eign 
Oo bus os * gh SE ————— 
——— — ——— fe dant Lena —* 


tht okt Beit saan tnt 218 mered tuo, — * Ex 









vend wehinws dane os touted shies a — Pe 
— ets on te woaltoskwr Pr as ond oF yurl ont te 
: t _itomem satoon ot de orem cab te an tera ot 
ae Sma cohse tocol ak gid? sihd Soutde ates os 
* ‘fe ee hat atiolvourtsank ess wk hoow aon. ® — — 
* $ wid meth yatekedamuosio Le ab on To —tei decane 
—— new ad sotiw amis wit of axentd. oss Scere 
SKE ae wtee o> bens ca vooons oalwreded of want 
Yl second hogta ac chicw bes “pod Sodgunegmy 
e'disbavteo ele te Leseveu Yd BeiwD onw souted— fn a 908 
aaw Tiitwlaig todd batt of qawt ad Sothupes Modiw. eam 
—J—— eae t¢ wahe O49 de — 
og) ".¢! mogs aww on exohel bos dears odd ae. gow ad 
A eBabee gREd say + EST BEE gee oN NOR omno gi) 


@ewes ots 48% 43S aggh «Ail POs * sfiakeali, Me nas 









—— te evantuni aid to wevig notiowtiont torts Ar⸗ se tba ys eh 
atpoiie soliaistesss of? shogun mioliiis alt ef teeidan tom a: 
bet ad gobeeeg Ofine e100 ebb Ye oaltdrexe od? wk — wellegge eas. 
wekiogea dads neltiurthunl e472 gl sowetkeged ad? iow oc4 Regu 
odd Go oaks old 30 wre aWh be sateen aad. pb * — —— 

‘gd Phat! goa 625 gaotdatadoad old mt 95 Lets 9 Fri 
@ Seren oot misttin sal yf owen ah te oe waa | vad digo 





wt meeed sored —* — oe 

WW amiy of? de Yutan me wld 

«tte of venta sevecet g2@ —9 5 war 

Pe Ioe woynel Chore bow geeete? OF Busy 
pale omks wad ete l wobtorctent eas | 

\ pete ge —— Cormeen O29 DF west | 


— — at gew ETS he ‘ 
‘XOTIR a9 5* & ee 3 
PAP ating — oe carn. 
——— ghee ERE — * 
— —* 
wei aetata ord ted? 





Ns " 
a3 







exercised ordinary eare for his own safety before and at the time 

















of the occurrence of the injury." (Italies ours.) (See alse 
EOTHUNE. vo. —— a 2835 1305 He Shore [te 
3 ‘ e 255 go Pens Vem m  Oliing | 
le goeereon. Ve Chieage 7 | ® 
« B24_ S283 Coy § be & St ys. Ge — TIES “hi. 42174 

2195 Ls? Se & Be +* x G a ¥o ul a lee cme ; 7 232, 238, 
iis! T Te — Lingten & iney 167 Tlle Apps — 

4 He Ne COs Ve 8) it 2 : 2 eo 38% Watt Ve 
Rys Soe» “ar iile inp, 049, & 


Defendant cites, im support of his contention, Village of Lockport ve 
Edghhs 221 Ile 353 Xedeger vo je He & Ge We He Gooey 242 idle Badg 
Bale vs Chiengo Junction Ry» Coos 259 Wie 476, but these canes are 
readily distinguishable from the instant one. &% the inetant ease 
the firet count of the declaration alleges, in subatenes, that plaine 
tiff was in the exercise ef ordimary care and coution fer hex own 
safety “while she was upom said State strect," and as we have heretoe 
fere stated, if the language in question is reasonably interpreted 

it required ordinary eare and caution on the part of plnintiff from 
the time ahe left the sidewalk on the weet eide of State street until 
the moment of the accident, and the alleged leck of care on her part 
all took place during the time “while she was upon aaid State atreet.® 
Pinintizf's instruction number twenty required her te be im the 
exercice of ordimary gare “at the time of and prier te the accident 
in queetion.* im wene of cGefendant's three inatructions tht bear 
upon the question as te the care required ef plaintiff te there a 
provision as to the care required of plaintir? juat prior to the 
accident. In wumber three the language ise, “and alee te prove 
that the plaintiff herself was im the exereise of ordinary care for 
her own safety." in wumber thirteen the language igy “and if the 
jucy believe from the evidence that the pisintiff failed to excreise 
ordinary care for her own safety, which failure, if eny, proximately 
helped in any way to bring about the accident * * *." In cumber 
eighteen the language is: "The jury are instructed that the plinine 
tiff cannot recever in this case * * * unless they find she hae 4 
preponderance of the evidence supporting the following propositions: 








eodeeed ven ve an oun ———— 
“gedorgueted ebdencooo uk wedtacuy at ogauymnt oe abes 
noe) Vibemiasg to tq M2 m0 mOtiuas ux oeHe YRBMtOTe RORIEpE 
gious devtin dnd? te ele teow ett. ae atemte ool! net —— 
tung sel ee etoe Ye teak Regeiia ade ome sdnotivew ate te deeemmm ons 
* towne ‘Agate bine woyw aav ody olive” ote odd gaixed coakg dood kin 
ae at ad od red Seth wyos ace eae aoe A Mee ary 














sets’ * bic” - — oa aversnas ear a *agtotes sed at 
sakorixh of betio’t VYr⸗agotx bai — oe wes — a —* 


Ce . —RR edt taeda antes 08 | 
idtalit oth gaatd nodouegnnd oa yet ea?” tat spaces 
| — — ——— 


—— mc 


“60 


Viret, That the plaintiff was not ot the tige of the sccident in 
question suilty of any failure to exercise ordinary eare for her 
own anfetys proximately contributing te her own injury * * *,* 
Under this atate of the record, it is hardly consistent, to ary 
the least, for defendant to claim that the seeord perasreaph of 
plaintiff's instruction number one is “vicious.” 

Defendant ecentends thet the court erred in giving plain- 
tiff*s instruetion number two to the jury: I reads as followss 

"The court instrvete the jury that on January 1, 1929, 
there was in full foree and effect im the “tate of OLlinmeis a 
statute of the State of Mlimeis ae follows: "In approaching or 
passing a street railwey coax, which has been stepped for the 
purpoee ef receiving oy ciccharcing paseengers, the eper«ter of 

motoxy vehicle or moter bieyele shall cot drive sugh rehiele 

er bicyele within ton feet of the runsing board or lowest wtep of 
mien Car, except by the express direetien ef a traffie officer gt" 
There ig no merit in thie eontention. Yhere is evidenee to the 
effect that the automobile of defendant, at the time of the 
secident, passed the stamding street cnr on the enst side thereof 
and within from two te ten feet of it. [i haw been repentediy 
held that 1% ie not errexy to give an inetruetion in the substantial 
language of the atatute, im Gard vs Meredith, Zf0 Uh. Shy 6B, 
the eourt saidt 

"’e¢ bave held in many eases that ne error ia eomultted 
—* vine an inetruetion im the substantial ianguage of a statute; 


& the instruction must be regarded as sufficient — * it lave 
—* @ rule im the words cout Bras a steckt » Reliyyiiie Coa) 





« Apps 610 —8 
248 Illes Appe 545, it is anid (pe 





*hbefendant contends that inetructions Boe. 8 and 9 should 
not have been given. Ingteuction Noe 8 reads: 


**'The statute of the State of lilineis provides thet any 
persen gin ay S moter vehicle en a public highway, shall, on 
overteking any other vehiele, pase on the Left side thereof s' 


"The inctruction is « partial recitel of section 40 of 
the Motor Vehicle Acts Cahili's Sts Gh» 95m, pax. 415 The insirue- 
tion certainly was pertinent beenuse it wae in evidence that 


ne Geabives edt No vals ade to gos som 228emtasa of. doutt tent 
* * sey qeontire sakonexe of srurkio® —* * — meee 7 
— ae sil ware —⸗ — 6 vie — ae." 









bh sae gia vin at boirns daKen ods saat? aba tene tnesseted * — : 4 in 
i “powwLiot ae abso a ont ode oa oe xodecse mettourtont ——— 
““YeOL af Taunt mo dnelt eon, odd iti ju ont 
Pn gar —— Me otads veld mt dusts es coves Lis at ann 1 
— sithdo se mga alt s@wolio? ex yet —J ate att 


—* led ee a oe e— gubonag 


ghaider deus evite Sun. — ry é weer we 
%e qede tnevel ve — — te jeek te * aLoyetd wo 
| WRy Bend Ute — 5 ko ogdigerts omeugue alt yw cysonm ytee atone 


whe Of temehlve oi oxed? . engiiusdnge ghde a2. then om ad * a 
ald Ye wads ed $2 qtmabustod ko oLtdomatin vst salt doeke 
Yewrady oben ane oct a0 tao tegnte gmbbmede itd paren oy , : = 
Vrosadt end wai 3: he doe set at ont amt miuiete = 























8 BD oh O88 eb oe Ama u- stunts até Y09 
















————— ——— 
whites * oe Mey —— aes —— * 
ne, pot’ aa 






«) bios sae ts ‘ube wh ott oon 


atvona e bee B soll enphseuttant dais sdastuno 
takes @ 4 mppeearsbert-: 


we satt sebivervq ehowkiil te ofad% meld ‘te pdedese *2 at — 
te giinte gyewmigid olisug » ane edoldov cotam @ gutsa soy 
Se Roots ohio BOL of? a0 woeg a oteldew vedio yaa: 


to Of molvoen to Ladies Laliang & af mobtonetamd aaa vis 
~ouxgamd ofT od omg g@BO of) 096 wt ittetad - —* — tou oa 
daa qoaskive ah quw of tavened tuutitug wer yiebadee 








oje 


Demmett pagacd tc the right of the Tensison ear whon he should 

have passed to the left. It is aleo argued that the inotruction 
ismet based on any vount im the deelaration. it would be propor 

te give such an instruction where the declaration charges negligence 
Sewerally, as several of the guunte in the declaration in the instant 
case do. That was the negligent driving of the ear, because it was 
in violation of the method preseribed 4 the atatube. Juarthexwere 
* ow 4 — te plead the statute, but only facta which 

re the Vielstion counted on witBin the etatutee Chisago & As 
Re Coe Ys Didlon, 123 Tle 87." Ae. 


The statutes, che Sl, paras 57 & 58, Cuhili's Thi. Reve Ste, provides 
that all courte of original jurisdietion shell take Judicial notice 
of "all laws of a public nature emacted by any atate or territory 
ef the United States." iefendant contends that the inatruction “is 
abatract, misleading, argumentative, drowe aiiention to a particular 
state of facts and there won ne count im the declaration to support 
ite” Phaintixf was not required te plend tae statute, bul oniy 
facte which brought the violation eceunted upon within tke statutes 
and, an we baye heretofore stated, there waa evidence tending to 
prove a violation of the statute, and the deginrstion alleged 
eufficions facts te bring the violation within the statute. The 
ease cited in support of defendant's contention, Etamas ve “askew, 
259 Ille Apps 364, ig rendily distinguishabie from the ingtant ones 
Defendant contends that the ¢ourt erred in giving plain- 
tiff's ingtruetion sumber nine to the jury, which reads as fellows 
“If, under the evidenes and under the instructions of 
the Court, the jury find the issues for the plaintifi aud tiast the 
plaintizf hae sustainee dcmages by renzen of physical pain and 
suffering undergone by her as & naturals direct and proximate 
result of the negligemes of the dofendont, as charges in plaintist's 
declaration, then te ereble the jury te estimete the nmount of euch 
camages, 86 caused by dear Fy and suffering, it is not 
necessary that any witness have expressed an epinien ee se 
the amount of such damages, but the jurors may make such estimate irom 
the fects and cireumstenees proved from the evidence, and by consid- 
ering thea in comneetion with their knowledge, observation and 
experiemee in the affaire of life.* 
The argument of defendant is thet thie inetruection “permits the 
jury te find the tewnes for the plaintiff under the evidence, in- 
atend of recuiring her te prove her ease by a preponderanee of 


the evidence.” Defendant coneedes, as he must, that it is an 







* 
eee | 
: — 


—— —— 

——— nd Ghar eres — J— —* —— 4 SDR 

saw @h savas {ao % pont J r «0h seas 

otectedsy.e% ——— —* 4a 043 10 weldaLely ah 

seiie aoa . — atte — poy, ae t BW at 

ok yb au a giatiw kotmueo md. gage 
ee | ** as EAk amehEss 








sletecn et ninviw ange vodmos mohiaLely od adguewd dete : 
OF ghivawd ebwobive saw ‘oxeds * Sie⸗vion ovat ow a 





mouk otamives dvite odam you — ons * 
“bianoo * as boucis bive ould ates 


et? odimueg” mol sounsuah. alts. —* — * ae 





“a steeiye! SAY. Sealer Rtpahtaga, * —2 — — 2 —* “ 





o3e 


inetruetion that relates only to the question of domagen, but 
argues that it is misleading and imaccurate. The contention is 
without the slightest merit. ‘The instruction is a standard one 
amd has been repentedly approved. See Thompson ve Northern 
Hotel Coo, 256 Ille 775 36-73 Sor Ste Be Ke “Oe We 
Bitagibvonss, 180 111. 466, 469; Lishardsom ve Nelgom, 221 Tl. 
254, 253; Keokuk Brédge Coe vs Jetuel, 228 Illes 253, 2695 Pirtre 
Ne Gray ¢t Ble, 202 Tlle Appe G01, and City of iitenfield vs. 
Bhitenscks 78 Tlie Appe 364, 366-7, wherein the court held that 
"this instruction is the law, and has been frequently so held by 
this and the Supreme Court." See also the ense of Ce & bs Ie 
ie Ne SOe Yo Clemingers 77 ILl» Appe 186, wherein the court aaid 
(pe 188)+ 

"It ig objected thet this instruction is faulty im that 
it uses the word ‘evidence’ inatead of the term ‘preponderance of 
evidencest * * # 

"Ve regaré the objection ae fanciful rather than substane 
tial. The word ‘evidenee,’ ac here used, could, in rensonable 
interpretation, mean nothing leas than ail she evidence. The jury 
were instructed aes to determining what constituted « — 
of the evidence in the tenth instruction given at request of 
appellants; and in the eleventh of appcliantes’ inetructions the 
word ‘evidence’ is used ae it is im the inetruction complained ef, 
de@Qe, Without the qualifying werd ‘preponderanee.** 

By plaintiff's inatruction number seven the jury were tele that 
plaintiff wae obliged te prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
her domages, if anys end by defendant's inatruction mumber eleven 
the jury wore tcolé that with reapeet to the ailments and disabilities 
Claimed by plaintiff the burden of proef was upon her to show by a 
prependeranee of the evidence uot only that such ailments really 
existed or exist, but that the ailments and disebilities are the 
reawlt of the acvident im question, and that the burden ef proof was 
not upon defendant te shew that such ailments did not proceed or 
arise from any other causes 

Defendant contends thet counsel for plaintiff was guilty 
of improper and prejudicial conduct in intimacing, during his 





HAE sabes Lo aokteoup’ at oe viteo me dees atis ee aa a 
“bE moh trates oat? — ——— ons nist 































| stain sean vee — — mat as om 


oat tas — _ E 
ephtee® 4008 482 4147 BER» eater » ambi Sulasi 1868 «DOs 
— Mos%dos2s. 39 W220 has M00 agyh LET S08 oafe t0 awd 
in OE TO ROS EP Ree Vache . dae ae Pre: er, fl 





“ee fe mt atone ORE wu LO : 


onndulllé tedd deldar fetionsl ee 


vidaswecot mt ghison qhomw 4 ale 
eit, of? seomshive oma ey —— 
— ——— [ [ # | 4 
mi bictttest teteni tease te ai é 
ots yugiieouttant *adreli 4 


gto bembaiquea wed dowedunt ods wh abt 
 somonehnogeng” vse 5 


sontebiys od? tts ronsrsbmagorg ts w — oe veption a ae 

mevets vodhuin motoutisah atinabno teh wf bun ye Uh —* ee ae 

agiIkiténakd dun esmoulde ott od deoguen Addy dad | — 

he ya vona ee red neq aw Roomy Lo mobcd od | himtote 

“VAkove odnnatte soue soul? as Jon vonpbhye. eds tw opt! 

ent ce aotttiivent> bes edoumite nats. tate ont tate 0 das 

naw Yeouy to mobwd wild tate hod qumbtonap. mh amobbooe we oe 8d — 

xo ahead tor bie wenombte store: toate ‘wees, ga pier | a 
wiles Sint Webeaane — 

ake gto epiitssmii ne ak dowbee, 


Ge 


erese-exemination of Brown, the motorman, that the witness “was 
telling on the stend a different story than he had told counsel." 
In support of this contention defendant cites the follewing frem 
the records which is part of the crose-exemination of Browns "Ge 
(ay Mr» Kays attorney for plaintiff): and the atory you ere 
telling here now is a little different than the story you told 
me? Mr. Gillespie (Attorney for appellant): I cbject to that. 
re Kays Objection to whatY Mr. Gillespie: I ebject te your 
etatement. Ae him whet he told you, that ia the preper way. 
Mr. Kayt Please let me make my statement. Er. Gillespie: I 
object to any of your statements te the witness. The Courte I 
wae wondering what coumsel's idea wag, - if he wanted te make 
himeelf a witmess. Mre Gillespie: That is what I went to find 
out. Mr. Kay: + “hat kind of « night wea this? A.» A clear 
night, to mr recollection.” The above is principally « eollequy 
between counsel, Defendant did mot require the cowrt te rule 
upon the question objected to, am the enly statement made by 

the court was, to say the least, not harmful to cefendent. The 
witness was net even required to anewer the question, and the 
objection made te it wae not that 14 wae a prejudicial question 
wut thet 4¢ was not the “preper way” to bring out what the witness 
hed stated te counsel for plaintiff. ‘%e are not disposed to heid 
that the question, asked upon crose-examination, was not 2 proper 
one, but, im any event, the argument that defendant was prejudiced 
by what oceurred is without the slightest merit. Defendant argues 
that he was prejudiced by the fact that plaintiff's esuxsel, in 
hie closing ergument, referred te plaintiff ae “thie poor woman.* 
It is a sufficient anewer to thie contention to say that defendant 
made me objection to any part of the argument, and in yiew of the 
fact that counsel fer defendant is an sable one, it is plain that 
the inctent contention is merely am afterthought. 





aan" ansmthy ois todd sommes ont coword 10 nabdamimexe-nupme 
*{eenuoo hod hat of mould quete omexvRRRb a Sarda ond we pabitos 
Lick tl! asdle Smatasleb so kéeyemes wind Yo Sanqare — 





* wobinademnereso9 yet ke t29q ob seid ybsooon st 


Wee OY Cente onld bed 4 ( PAdnhaly Got Yomuntin aya, awe 
ehet wey yxadu eatt svnth tuoret ths #La0ks 2 at wom evel gabiied 
_atodd of dystee 1 al smacingye cot yourneata) ena ee pia 
amoy. o¢ doobds T sedge ki «aH — scan vx· 
eaw sega ett of dadt quay ahed eel dade wkd Meh © ty 
K s@hyeekih «3 .toemedade em eset om gel eaoels en 











Tt stuwe? off «saccade oad of ntoomdadn wey Xo ye as costde 


“po 6? Sedma of 2 = qnaw osbt at onmes Gxtw Gabxobtow amt 
bak? e2 tues 1 daw of SadkT rolqnellie «x8 +anemdiw a: ‘utvombit 
taeko A eA tuddtt. can setghn a Ye fakt Sats : ae xñci ett + they 


Wipelies a Ax⸗at ont ai evodn oat “.aobtveLioves ‘es “ tata . 


aiwt 08 dww69 wid sthupee tort et) senate fone aus v 
— — bovis. | ot wot 
ae? + Praboeted ee br tenain gon — oae “Yom es aaa x 2 ott 
~ tan sadtsenp ele nwesin wt: bochuped weve: Wea diel dneetied 
mobinon Latodaukesa # sew ti declt ton wow 2 oF sham meltortde 











saentin ots sede ano gmind we “yor wegerg® ot toa wow $b doit? mud 
hied ot tenoquh ton axe s¥ + Pitsehahy wot Loannoe of bedate tet 


tgorg « fon gow gtohiontmas-asets meg bolier «rehioeny y atte 2 ett 
beolbuberg aww tnabantod Jatt Somwgte ot gino Yhw Mt gout yom 





ovugre Inabwoted «fixe dInedsintts add fuoddiw et beeweeoe daw Gl 


*.maemy tog Bist" ao TLsntaly.od howe ten yeabdmpce meer KAA 
ImdaOeh duals Yon Of aeksiadinoe wise of cowece soloed tive & ek #2 ’ 
ott %e wolv mk das <inmmyss sad To ding quod nehteetee be wha 
fos body oh Sh sone. ekds et.aznoꝛet· wer aaama · tnth Soa ; 


stiiguedstetia a: yLevem al mebdmadaeo gn 








“106< 


Defendant hac had a fair and importinl trial, ond the 
gudgment ef the Superior court of Cook county should be and it 


is affirmed. 
ARV IAM. 


Oridley amd Sullivan, JJse, concure 






Fe en ee Ne ee 























6 RRO Se 
RE ge cep eat 
ahr; ame — * 
pdt 4 Aron, a 
niokes oe. Siete, a iil 
— wy — — * — sa i 5 J 
rae * hain ie eee 2 J—— potent = 





— oe wired os +e —— 
koe a Seems i Soha — men fet ! — 
saga say. A Fit et gttailhd . . ‘ 
heetiniieny new fects hes, ‘aati MAR il 
ORY Meg: nlingen bas, Ras Scutate hey * — * | 
Ch ghtaceey 0° Skene: ——— we 
"ne tao able aoe Bowe ae Dene 
ADeDMURA Body gee od —E — we 
eit Be wohe ok See gee ale Sw tom 
hat EOE OR DE gee: — shes toi 








36257 





ALIVE Co ©ILSOM, 


Appellee, 
APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COUNT, 
— — GOOK COUNTY, 
: e PYRG at ® 2 > ee 
‘ppellant. 1 270I1A.62L 


Mie PARSIDING JVSTICN SCARLAZ DILIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COUNT, 


Plaintiff filed an action in case against defendant. 
There was a trial before the eourt, with « jury, and a verdict 
was returned finding defendant guilty and ascessing plaintiff's 
damages at $7,500.  Pleintiff entered a remitiitur of $2,000 
and judguent was entered for $5,500. Defendant hae appealed. 

The case seems to hove been tried by the guestéing 
judge ably and fairly, for the sele ground urged in support of 
this appeal is that “the verdict and judgment are exeessive.” 
Defendant comtends that “the judgment should be reveraed and the 
defendant given a new trial or that the plaintiff’ should be_ 


required to enter a remittitur of st Leagt half the amount of 
this judgment." Plaintiff contends that “the question of the 


alleged excessiveness of the judgment is not subject to review in 
this court, since such question was not included in defendant's 





motion for a new trial, mor ig it assigned as errer in thia court." 
in the Lower court defendant filed « written motion fer a new 
trial, ané the only ground therein sssimmed which relates in any 
way to the smount of the damages awarded by the jury is» "9+ The 
verdict is grossly excessive.* Upon a consideration of defendant's 
motion fer a new trial the triel court held that the amount 

awarded was exeessive and required plaintiff te enter « remittitur 

























: cg Oe 

" oe 

} 4 ifm a Rg 
eHOSILY 49 ROLZA 

* 
eT8@0 TIALS BORK ——— MOREE y J eee * — — 
* h : 
eXTHUGS ROOD 


ie | 


ers 


* 





— 
‘IS0 . 1088 | 
eTeU00 SHY VO MOLMIGO MNT CEAMVICIG MAdWADS MOLTSUL SLGLSAAE 9 ME 


» dashes tab deniege gene mi woizoa ae bollt Wisniass 
dotieev & bow grewh a ddiw edsuen odd exoted talz? od 
attiivatede geleaoea bas Yting dnabasted pant bead rae ee 
O00.8¢ le tell siaet a hexetme Tiidates 10084 08 ta 00 
eholnogqs nasi dnabestet  o00%—S9 xoꝛ beredas aon am vbel 
gulbioorg eid yd holed need ovat of umvee een eft : : 
te sxoqqre at hegus beveng eos et vot suitha? baa ude wpbut — 
*“ovicewexe etn @eomghy|, bas Soitvew os" tes at Laveen — 
ea? bee beexoves ed hivede Sreanphart acta” fait abeodnon 
8G bivods Sisaleals off dats we fais? won o nevis 
_28_inome ott thet duoek tp to mdb stqoe a. 
ests to moivseup sale” Salt ahendneo 1 iidaie ti 





— wk bonutoal son saw Moldeswp Moun ponte a 
“,dxeo0 aid’ al sont aa by ‘ea 82 of Xom inbad wom 4 6% mo. 


wre at eotates dalae dotataae mi swords boron ae sd — 7 
eft 48" yal cut nit wt bébaawa aogamab ost Ye sma wuld 
at éasdneted %¢ Mol dstobLense a mogS “sevieneoxe vhasory et 
dmvems esd dort Bias txwen Lobnd ont tates won a x0 | 
widislaos » todne oF Yitdabaly hotkayest brs — cow | het 


wee 


of $2,000, which was done. Defendant made no further motion in 
the trial court ond thereupon judgment wes entered for $5,500. 

Im the assignment of errors defendant assigns og error, "Se The 
verdict ig grossly excessive,” but he has not ussigned as error 
that the verdict, ag reduced, is excessive, nor that the amount of 
the judgment entered after the remittitur ie exeessive. Im 


"Counsel for defendant contend thet the question whether 
the sum of $3,000 ia excessive is included in the aesignment that 
the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. That 
motion and the reason or grounds for it are im writing, and the only 
ground at sll relating to damages ia im these words: ‘The damages 
avarded are excensive,’ which can only menn that the assessed sum 
of $5,000 was exeessive. The court seems to have been of this 
opinion, as it was on the suggestion ef the courts and to prevent 
another trial, that the plaintiff remitted $2,000 from the verdict. 
The court rendered judgment for the remainder, 94,000. The objection, 
or ground for a new trial, that the awa of $5,000 was exeeasives, was 
eliminated from the motion by the reduction of the domagea be 059— 000, 
and that ground is not before us for review, and there is ne assignment 
of errer which includes the objection that the sum of $5,000 is 
excessive. The rule is that every errer relied on must be aouigned 
and specifically pointed out in the assignment, and thet an errer not 
oe assigned is mot reviewable. Berry v+ City of “hicago, 192 file 

. 


In Sobuen ve Holines !« Moline & Gatertown Ry» Coes 149 Tlle ‘ppe 132, 
1456, the court saidt 


*it is contended that the judgment in exeessivee The 
only assignment of error on this subject ia that the verdict is 
exeessive. The trial court so held and required a reduction of 
$1,000. It is mot aesigned for error that the judgment for the 
reduced amount is excessive. YThe point now made that the judgment 
is exeessive seems not therefore included within the aesigmaent of 
errerse Penna, Coe ve Surving Tle Appe S67." 


In Seofieléd ve Yabesh hailway Coe, 214 Tlie Appe 355, 555, the court 
enids 

“Yineliy, it is contended thet the damages are excessive. 
The only errer ascigned ia that the verdict is exeessive. A remittitur 
ef $5,000 wes entered. Judgment was then rendered for 215,006 and 
there ia no assignment of errer question the amount ef the judgment. 
Mm error, not Tey ry is not open to review. t Ms City of 
Ghiengo, 192 Ills tass)." 
As the defendant has made no aunignment of error that im any way 


questions the amount of the judgment, there is merit in the contention 


of plaintiff. However, we have seen fit to examine earefully 


wi moivem vexitcut oc tha getabmoted semek aow dobdw 4000988 be 
+Hite88 20% Sexedas enw Setaphol, woqeexed? bao sxuo9 datea seats 
off +@* gxorss on eagleua tmabretee etovre ko dremmgices eal at 
“torte as Benglesa dom eee off dud “sovlssnoxe “fswwry at ‘tottxey | 
29 ttivers ond tout ten sovinncom af sbooubes ee eSolirow add Sate 
at © -dvhensbeb of wthodiews oxtd 29e%e dereoen a 
“Ebene Free os oaks aoe: wag «ff O82 ,gtveut 
Rage bry molieeny Bate cons aged aoo —— so}. 
a eiaizd wom 9 we} mohiou ait —— 
















vne ond brs sisw Gt oem 22 207? @ 30 monees i 
sagan aatt ait seoaee ‘@uode mt ef 5 
ie Seneeser of? todd Geom As nae — 
whale %o mood ovat oF aaeea duces ott © . 











tod base 0 aa? Ye moi sa: 
N— wae mye “pede aso iia 


i aor oa} 
7 J 
Bais “BP ee % 
* 
- 








tnapexe waw 323 Re amin Odd . aiid wer m 16% fi 
—* 4 aegqumeh off Ie agidorher ait yd 2 os gost be 


eu OM 43 ened? bem gwaivec «or ev eveted Jom don wd" his 
eh 260,69 Yo awe odd dads woltosive ed? —— 
— Satis a Sand. tole cPnEOane aoe oh free SOME * 


Yo gomempiers welt misiady — — ————— SVL ORBSKE & 
"ae J hk ee ee +8308. 
fuse als 962 988d aa! ae bia 262 febioa® ¢ 


eoviousoxe oa soyemad add baud aoe * Ay — —— 
SuslIgsmes sf. 118 at aot * ot. boy 
—— 


— — — 


— ottimaxe #22 eee aval Ow Feat 


ote 


the evidence bearing upon the alleged injury to plaintiff for 
the purpose of determining whether justice demanés a further 
reduction in the amount of the judgment. From a reading of 
the transcript of the evidenee we find that defendant did not offer 
any evidence bearing upon plaintiff's lujuries. 

The accident happened about noon on January 9, 1931, on 
Michigan avenue, at the intersection of South Water street. Flaine 
tiff was riding in the front seat of an automobile driven by her 
husband, Just prior to the saecident plaintiff's husband had stopped 
his car at the street interacction, cear a eaafety islend, ani while 
waiting for the traffic Lights to change his car vas atruek in the 
year by a much larger and heavier cnr owed by defendant and driven 
by hia ehauffeurs, whereby the sar in which plaintiff was riding was 
thrown forward a diatance of four or five fect. From the shook of 
the collision plaintiff's head was snapped violently backwaré and 
she bit her tongue. She felt “a terrible snap,” and was throvn downe 
At fireat she could not move her head. “he was immediately taken te 
a doctor's office where she experienced great pain in her neck, aise 
chills and numbnegs. The attending physician testified that 
plaintiff wee brought to hie effiee “in a staggering cencition,® 
that he made a therough examination and found symptoms which 
“tndieated some serious injury to the nerves ami bones of the necks" 
"her complaints were chiefly regarding her neck, pain im the neck, 
pain upon movement, sensation of paralysis in the left side of her 
face and sensations of parelysis and nucbness in the left arm, and 
extreme vyertize and headache. ‘he could not stand alone without 
pitehing forward ot the time thet she came inte my office, and az I 
recollect for several days afterward before she could got about 
alone» in X-ray examination shows the piece of detached bone of 
the lateral process just opposite the bedy of the second cervical 
vertebra. The companion film to this shows the same condition. 


: . g 
pry ae 


a Yeddabatg o# qturlat Begelia oat moqw anitaod —9 ode 
ost & gbrasied vol toa’ weridesy gathered ab te — oat 
Ae grtieas 2 meat “ sfonapict oslt Yo temomn nt a sobdouber 
wie tou Dib snobaetod duets dakd 7 eomedive eM? Te tqiroonert | odd 
td cat a'ritentety aogu⸗ aataoe⸗ —8R oe 
wn «thts 18 Yawnel we non sods Honeggad sasblova elk J * 
mit’ ornen iodR! Aiwel Lo welipouresel ed? fe geumeva tay 


sah, a wes J —J— 


* — ek bvomodua as te tage aoe ods a — —2— —* — 



















— D— went 
eEitetor ‘Wie gmedat qieton 6 tor enol soowestnt tooede oi ta aw ate 
ect th stanete oat xn eit kay sie’ ed — orm ots not pate — 


ae te soot aie mote steht wert te wo? ve santas a — —28 
Gane ex beset sali ‘enknig mtatifeo 4 








Onks tour ‘et nt abeq teeny —ã— 
Gauls borthinsd naletewig veu owotte oft — — 

“ities shone gnizennsie # at" —— hides 

| atoiate ome oyaryx Seavet Sam not temthanse 

“kan et 36 wand bn gowson it of : 












tout te shia’ dtoL edt wh table: Xe Bottaensa ‘jie ha thee : 
ban gato S798 eft wh enendim das * * anoldsensa Saw sot 


gives keg uiue ttn ‘ouaied Vediidirds rrp J 9 — 
————— 
| Eemkvico bneges ont te necenenenn tana e 
moh shonoe agisa ald sweste ated 92 ath malvern 


ote 


The detached piece of bone is from the left transverse process 

ef the second cervical vertebra. They are neck boneag” “the 
fracture ie simply of the tip ef the process, the bone being 

Pulled loose and doesn't mean anything compared to the damage that 
was done toe the sympathetic nervous system; that is the big thing 
im this onse.” The doctor further testified that when he «xamined 
plaintiff on January 9, he “found » contraction of the left pupil, 
pallor of the skin over the lower pertion of the left face, the left 
side of the neek, the left arm and the ekin of the entire surface 
eof the left arm had the appearanee that we get when we are chilled, 
as goose flesh» There was a paleness in the left arm. There wae 
eweliing in the neck just below the back of the ckull shout a half 
inch down, in the regien right over these bones. This swelling 
was most prominent on the right side. There wae a dietinet swelling 
on the left side in front of the juncture of the second and third 
eervicnl vertebrae; there was vertigo, constant diasinesss the 
blood pressure was very lew, around 903 she waa vuffering from 
ehock, rather thin pulse, low blood pressure and the right pupil 
wag dilated. The left pupil was contracted. 1 atminiatered 
stimulants. 1 gave her strichnisa im solution. J had her lie 
éowne i found that she could not lie down without being vo disazy 
that she wae afraid she would vomit, so we supported her head and 
shoulders acmewhat. * * * | kept her in the office until after 

6 Pe Me"® From the date of the aecicent until about April 15 thie 
éoctor sew plaintiff very frequently. During this peried her 
condition very graduslly improved. He found that she still had 
partial paralysis ef tve fingers of the left hand, pain in the 
radial and ulnar nerves, constant dizsiness and vertige, end a 
tendency te pitch forwards that one of her most serious injuries 
related to one eye. The day after the accident her right eye 
showed some improvement but the condition of the left eye remained 


eaSOON, Se gevetetd Jo. edd wert af owed Te, ead adalv ꝓd ah ahh 
att" “geousd doen ota eat  sandotsay dasiwise treocg te | 
wiied onus att ganeoom alt Ie gid madd, 29. tants, 8! wimtoes 
todd ogous eu! 63 soncqmoe aaidiyae meom — hie amoed J—— 
acricta pid odd at test famdaye avevion eltedtoqaya ad: | 
bomtanne of mosey Sot onde oases cotdray noted — 
ang tod oti to weltectines « baw” eal 9@) ate 4 
tok oH? .0sk PFok ols Xo molgseg weet oad enh Ste, ts operant | 
Beatin wyeme add Bo mida ads dom arte S2oL, pate saloon wid 39.0 
“shakin ote ar mode don Ow Saale SeMATASEGM ond, dat axe Hed at he 
saw ound sme ¢tok off of anempled 9 eae oieth. «dee seep me 
Nad @ trode Lasts O88 to dont edt woh deuh Moon silt ed gmbLSomm: 
peiiiews eit? «sssnpd oeadd cove dciah« molgot sft — 2 a 7 | 
gabizews Ronttais & gave eved? ~ sohia IMyss wed me tet mo 7 ont } 
aehits tne heosee eff to omdont one 2 foo mF abe HO atm 
este tenvmtssts Impuseo yontveov kaw wxeaty yernietioy Loeivrsy 
wee yatew tee wow arte” * — — it 
Spee detgt< Wad Ben wines ee t é ae : 
peweaithuse I  sbebowedade wae — ee teeny aoe 4 
wit out ta X atiohdetom ft) wtitotaye’ aden 
—— A wou he oo ae ee 
eette Eh aes wok does nb wel toga ee station sro Liven 

















Se ere ee ce 

































de E248 sto tte Sewer at sbevoxgat “sai —* J 


Se 


wichangeds, and had not improved at the time of the trials that 

she had “hallucinations of vision due to the injury to the eye 

and nervesj the wall would sypear to come down to o certain level, 
then have a sharp bend in it such o9 we get when we look inte thess-/~ 
mirrors. There was complaint of ebjecte before the eyes, and 
@loudiness of vieiom in the left eye. The right eye was influeneed 
aympathetioolly but eclenred up rapidly. The condition ef the left 
eye remains very much the same ac regards the pupil reaction today» 
i gave her iodide sedatives. “© gave her diathermy treatmenta 

and infrerei and ultra violet, and by medication, eareful dieting 
and very @eareful cooperstion to prevent any sudden movement of the 
head we got saleng vithout using © neck splint. 4y epinion is 

that this injury not only involved that little fragment of bene 
which wouldn't be of much consequence in and of itself, but that 

the main trunk and the auperior cervical ganglion om the left side 
of the sympathetic nervous system was seriously injured. The 
fracture of the transverse process of the vertebra could, in my 
opinion, account for the symptoms of paralysis or lose of sensation 
of the fingers om that side and in fact through the involvement 

with the sympathetic nerve center. { could net find any ether 
cause in my examination to account for thet condition. if mace 
complete bleed tests, “ascerman test, a careful urinalysies, and 
found her to be a perfectly heelthy woman, free from any infection 
or disease which would possibly produce these symptoms. * * * She 
tires easily and when she is tired this vertigo in mere pronounced. 
The contrel cf the left hand iz #6111 impaired; she drops objects 
involuntarily and when fatigued the left hand gives way. ‘che etill 
suffers from headaches, from a moderate degree of insomnia and the 


éisturbance to the eye nerves has become a , 6efinitely established _ 





unger all conditions. * * * The fact that it has persisted now 





fit? (tobtd bite te omid ooo Ds Sovougad son tad bee YbepwedeRy 

‘oe ot OF yevtad odd ed oun avllly Ye siebsendbetton” worn 
etevel Miaites « 63 wkeb ba00 6¥ caagge btbow Ekew eat tonvven ‘tae | 
Bice cshgniprdbnnoh Attempted mp Fo | 
hee geegs ond seeted wteeyee Yo enisigano caw Sued sake 
hooedtiat enw eye dpi oct oes Stor bad al Wetedy th deent tuo 
#29 be Yo not dtionne eat — .eLotq ay qu bUtabke Hed qRbebtoeavage 
“yahoo sotvaads Ltqag odd obveopé: os ome et Mos Yoo entail He q 
adieudnesd yreoddale ced evep of seovtenben tht byt ced oveg T 
 Rebeek® Rertereg qnobicothonyd Gan .todelw wediy ire eters! bee 
ee ee a catsnnvabbs Eanenus Wecn ben 
— — 
EDoo —⏑— — ——— texts 
tad? fod ytised? to bts at comsupeanée tout te 66 oahu Hetd 
wie Pak 969 mo nobsineg Lactwise sobeequn oh tn sed mba at 





























“ bfis yelectanity fvtexas s 4feed aeirscan died heeke WoL gits —— 
Heldootns Ya MOTI OOTY gnaniow YLede Y¥oo dog ie 2 
ort * © * sanodepign soedt vowhong vitiwaog Bier sotto ensvard x0 q 
sbopmweneng ov0m ab oalitov aldd beet! wi Seta muti bie YLiine wets —— 

visoldo ayorb sly {Doutagm L688@ uf Seal Pek sito Yo Lowinos edt —— 
Lkkte wed? Yow cory beinet SOLWAY Dowgddat meatw heel UEMEedae Level 
adi Dae slampant Yo sergeb stevesom a moet — — 4 


— mee See ene eae — Tae a pe oe = F , 
Ce Fy NL Re aS, ee I eS Se Oe ee a he ey is Te ae are) eed 






won bedateroy: and St —— yee 


26 


for ever a yoar, in my opinion that hos become a permanent 
Gigability. As regards the use of the arm anc hand, there is a 
possibility of some improvement, maybe five or ten per cent, but 
@ certain remtant of that dissbility will be permanont. ‘The 
condition of the headeche and the symptoms that develop when she 
ig fatigued will probably persist indefinitely. There is nothing 
at the prevent time I enn do to correct the condition. wy 
charge fer services was $200." There way much further evidence 
effereé by plaintiff im reference to her injuri¢s, but «e do 
net consider it mecezcary to refer epecifiiesliy to the some. 
Plaintiff testified, im part, thet she wae in good health before 
the accident, thet following it her eyes had oreseed, that her left 
eye wes pulled upeard anc outward and thet she was obligec to 26 te 
an eye specialist and that he gave her classes which helped to 
correct thet trouble, but thet «as soom as she bevomes tired that 
condition again wentfeets itself. 2 «oe have heretefere stated, 
defendant offered mo evidenes to centrovert the testimony for 
plaintiff as to the alleged injuries, and there is nothing in the 
record to suggest that the elnim is not an honest ome. The 
gontention ef defendant that the amount of the judgment is 
exeeavive, is vithout merit. 
the judgment of the Circuit court of Cook county will 

be affirucd. 

APTIRMED: 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJes coneure 


EE << —— 
















4 — — —“ * — woe 


ee Py a ee EN eC 
ep ee ee eg ee ee * Boe 


tater ees ee ee ee 


iat ane sane — bad. ney, wnt, * MiweLfot dans of 
os on of Seeticn ena vile fads aris Oxewere, See bot 





— any ain Soe, ——— ft meat cal eset a 





(ys 


— emer in 





efosreo skoda ave thie see ee —* Fee abe “ef —— ‘ale 
Ye owetg bane SAT pe bere ee ae cities m — 
oi in Rea a MOND —E— tanec i 

_ RARE LB Nee SISOS IN eet ARE a al ie ian anal: eit ge ‘3 2a , a 3 
2 Bog Ra geos — Bi st: Stich hh be ee es — See. ri via 4 oe a 
WPS Ae avery ae reese Pao ees m3 bu oS Aanate diane, 






eu 

Pee rial 4 
— * 

— 


36267 


A He MONEIS, Receiver for 


Binga State Banks a ation 
‘ — leaks , 





APPEAL FYROM MUNICIPAL 


FOUNTAIN —— COUNT OF CHICAGO, 
‘mae =} 270 1.4. 6217 


Mie PASTING JUSTICS GCAMLAW DELIVINSD THR OPINION OF Tm couNT. 


Plaintiff caused a judgment by confession on « promissory 
note to be entered against defendant. Afterward the judgment vas 
opened up amd defendant given lenve to defend. There was a jury 
trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in defendant's 
faver, and plaintiff appealed. The first division ef this court 
reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new triale 
(Morrie vo Thurman, 263 Ills Appe 78+) ‘The ease wae again tried 
and there was a second jury trial which reeulted im a verdict and 
judgment in defendant's faver, and plaintiff has again appealed. 
Defendant has not seen fit to file on appearance nor brief in this 
courte 

Because of the former opinion it is unnecessary te make 
@ statement of the theories of the parties.  Filaintiff strenuously 
contends that under the facts and the law the verdict of the jury 
is entirely indefensible.  fter a reading of the transcript of 
the evidence we are satisfied that thie contention is a meriterious 
one, and it seems reasonably plain that the jury found fer defendmt 
beemse they believed thet Jesse Binga, the president of Binga “tate 
Bank at the time the note was exeeuted, got the $6,500 from the 
bank but did not turn it over te defendant. Sings and defendant 
were relatives by marriage and bad been intimate friends for fifty 
yeore.  Lefendant oadmite that he had transactions on a nusber 


re 

| dame wore — +a —— cgi 

eae ky es GAR EAT q 

‘Eg9 AT OTS" — 


Takai IT UG, KOTMALO SMT GEREN Lae. MAAS ee, — — 


ee ee os a 


Vig Se 








at tnatino ben at dei bmn detbsow x at od tues hick gt ih 
— abtd 10 iotelwis gext? out  .dekoogge 2lbniad 
pales? wane cet ceieo oft bine bee “tr si dati Jhavees. 
boixd mage wow saad sot “(600 vagh cit ee sr Me tills ge 8 dD 
bia totbuev & wt bedtuner olde kered viol Smoven # naw ¢ ead be 
sholeoage wttage ved Vitintale Sas .rowst Bf tand m we cdi, 
ehh? wi Yoktd con ai ofit 00 2 neu iseoks Pad 


Fo 4 Lik a — ae 


PON ee en ee Oe ee SS eee 



















a ee SC eS at = Ee Tae Pe a 


te i aseee edd to getboor a teehe 

asorsedinon 2 ef mossnempe aide Sailt bette kdau oh —* etre 
dmmonetoh we2 bawod yxvh add socld mhalg Adaooao-n aaa ae — 

sda92 aie te spohhoone wld _argerd tl saan teed? & — 





dresbersted bre apt = —« Iadrotes oo rove 4 — 1 ton ny jue 
xeꝛaa 19% admol«t stoutink mood bat dam pad aau ak * 
—— ae 


* 
— 


ele 


of oeeasions with Binga and that he had been a depositor of the 
bank from the time it opened twenty years before the signing of 

the note. He teatified that for two or three years before the 
time of the signing cf the note he had been after Binga to get 

him a farm and thet finally Binga told hin, “I will fix yau up. 

I got a farmj" that he signed the note in question without reading 
it and upon representation by Ninga that it was an appliesntion to 
purchase a farm, and that he received no consideration for the 
note. the great weight of the evidence shows that defendant 

signed the note and knew what he wee doing when he signed it, and 
that on the same day that the note war signed the eashier of the 
Dinga State Bank drew a loan eheck for 06,500, payable te defendant, 
which was enshed by the Sings “tate Bank and bears the indorsement 
of defendent. The records show that the bank paid this $6,500 upen 
the note in question and the note was esarried by the bank as an 
asset and was found by plaintiff when he was appointed receiver of 
the bank by the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State of Tllineis. 
In the opinion rendered upon the former appeal of this esuse it 

wae eaid (pe 83)% 

"if the president ef the bank, in obtaining the exceution 
of the note, knew that the note was being execute net for the 
benefit of the bank, but on the contrary, to obtain (6,500 of the 
bank's money, netice to the president would net be notiee to the 
bank beesuse their interests would be conflicting, ané the bank or 
ite receiver could bring suit on the note and recover unless the 
defendant without negligence on his part, exeeuted what he thought 
was an application for a farm and not = promissory note.” 

"“Netice te an officer of a corporation is not notice te 
the corporation in transactions where the officer is denling with 
the corporation in his own interest and not in the interest of the 
corporation. (Siting Cases.) (Ameri Guarant » 2 
Bank of Saat Lynne 244 Ille Apps 16. 

Defendant admitted that the signing of the instrument in question 
invelved a personal transaction between him and Ginga. Both the 
reveiver and the assistant receiver teatified that defendant told 


them that he signed the note in order that Ginga would be able to 


ale 


eit to «ediaegeh « acod desl of dertg bus agate déiw atotaaono te 

‘te gukagic ads oroted sie9y yviterd bemeqe oi emt? of? mott dna. 

act goto’ wisoy owuld 16 get 162 dads boltitand ai oso. sal 

dap of agai xovta moed bal ol phon edd Xo watingke add So embe 

tH wey wih dhde 1" guid Biot agate ‘vient? dott? dee meet amid 

guiveax auetitw nebéesap «i ofon edd borgie of date * eu #@ toa 1 

@? meltestiqgs ma aoe oh fond agai we potdadtae ergs: Kequ bra a 

“ete tet wolseresianes oa peer os sad bas 1A & sendotig 

Jasbir ted todd ewode gonsbive odd to ditgtow —E att sen 
ne: Ak: beteahe ane RENAN ee: A AAPA MN ARNT SOREN 
sieabaeies a efseyng — 00s we eade sk woth Sek tet ut hes 
eqs G0E,d§ wtAd Mog avad ome tant wore — * 
% tevloven bodateaes eaw on gost — * weet oar — f 
eal QHhiLY Ro wdede vad to atcweoas side Re: waaaas sald tend a q 
“gt sawoo ait? to Loscqgen xomyot ad? coge betehmes moteige eda m= 














































aoisvooxe off gitialetde ai gdaad esis to Soe 
eis «83 gon betuooxe guied saw a iy Be 
edd to OG0,95 mletdo os | 
ef? of soliton e¢ fon Siwow trea Be ried 
9o tna’ ais bee gnaidelstees of binew 
of? cueiau tsovooesx bas ofon oie no otis 
Selguacts on tate betyooxs | ehh me, 
*,osen Vreas leone a er sane wtat a x02 


& af ceo tte edd) 


of solsex toa et notdeseqx00 m te eos the. ne 
- gviw grkiee svonw anes 
_ watt bd Ryo geodon * at on yee ° 2 






— nt tmemttant ‘odd Ye gntmia outs taslt pre snobas 
ot Atel sayeth bow sated foswaed avhios anoté fanosre ca bow! 

: bios trabawroe dnt portidusd weytooet ‘tnatelees eee on? bun os 

ger sida oe —* — 0x0 oat ton od rae ru ‘ iss : 


Fi a —— — 






-3- 


secure the money from the bank to pur¢hase a farm for defendant. 
Defendant denied that he made this statement and ingiated that he 
thought he wae signing an appliostion for the purchase of a farm, 
but a number cf cireumstanecea aupport the testimony for plaintiff 
in that regard. Defendart also denied that he signed the 
indorsement on the back of the lonn cheek, but the evidenee is 
practically conclusive that he did. befendant admitted that he 
told the receiver, when the latter culied him in about the note, 
that he was too old to pay a debt like that even if he owed it. 
After reading the entire record in this ense we are antiefied that 
justice demands a retrial of the causes 

Upon a new trial the court showld not give to the jury 
defendant's ineatruction mumber four, given to the jury im the instant 
trinl, ae it is highly mislending, to say the leaet. in the matter 
of instructions, in a future trial it should be borne in mind that 
even if defendant believed that he was executing ean application for 
the purchase of a farm, nevertheless, he would not be entitled te 
a verdict in hie faver if it also appeared, from the evidenee, that 
he had been guilty of negligence in signing the note. (Morrig ve 
Thurman, eupras see also Yoodlam Security ¥inanee Corps v. Doyles | 
252 Ille Appe 68, 753 Besely ve Seark, 230 Tlie Appe 393, 3986) 
Moreover, if a jury found from the evidenee thet defendant in signing 
the instrument in question wes assisting Binga to obtain 96,500 of 
the bank's money, plaintiff could still recever against defendant 
even though the latter received none of the money thus secured from 
the bank. (Korrig v. Thurman, supra.) The trial court should also 
bear in mind, in passing upon inetructions, that defendant admits 
that the signing of the instrument im question involved a personal 
transaction between him and Binga. 

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chiesge is reversed , 


ang the esuse is remanded for a new trials 
Gridley and Sullivan, JJ.» concurs REVERSED AND REMANDED, 


SS ee ee es — 


soitaive eb vet weet 2 onefoxey We ded oct weX? Genet add exude 

an dsl¢ hodulen? Son dromedude els t comet we dautd Holmed tandaeted 

savat a te awationay of) Set moitoet diggs te Ykapia eaw of Sdguodd 

VrINtaly werk vewtdneF edd Ceegeww evondteavecio Te code « dud 

wie Bonete of Sat? holes eule dapheeteoG  —§ .iweges taddomt 

wi ooneSive ads vod (doers most off Te séed ett me deeemesebal 

ot Fail) Deditwhe deebawret OES od dud GWindLones Yheetiedtg 

eoten Sud tueds AI mid BOilas voided ed? nedw ¢seeMoor ede Rted 

.d? bows oa th cobye eatd oni eee o ‘wag od be wet aor oat Sats hy 

Gayl? belteisen o¢e ow onno efstd ad bedoos ettiow etd gaPbeor wads 

* Ganez of Ye Sabrdet & wtnameb — 

ER EE eT a 

ductaut wt mi ut ods oF KoNEy yew? eoemmaT a — 

 eetdmn ody at J tenet oo que of —pahhenieds ea ‘salghates ‘3 

dud omim st omred od Miwecte 32 Laded ex wiat Aomk gomotde to 

tet mahdaD tiene me gabsuoem wow ih dose — 

OP beLttine OF tom Muow of yeantadsrerer gmat a te —8 < 

fod (oomeDive af! mort yetesqus cade dt Lt weve adef mi-dokbrew 
eae voven ath satu st 6 SSRN 

















— ake tamdan tow — — att mot eu emt — 
te 009,99 mhaddo or apne nat o0 ara ane molten nt Sermurndamt ot 
saahuete’ tontege Teveses shite aluo⸗ vitvaladg eso a 'knad * oa 
omer hoswese ornntts weiron one te oma devioaee seteed ate ergy _ : ' 
eats biuerte ¢twos Kates ont —* —— 







—— at —** bees sxueo Loqtotim outs — fe ) 


‘dale Wen 6 ak samen . 
SAME ST GA neva awmomeo oobt gtueviling | 





* i$ 


AHNA CURTIS, 
Appellees 
Ve APPEAL, FROM CIRCUIT 
PHILLIP GTAth BANK AND COURT, GOOK coUrrTy. 
ring a & corporation, \ 
ae etee, Spry“. FA 
Appellant. 2 r4 0 LA. 622 


WR, PRESTUING JUSTIC“ SCANLAN DeLIVERED THK OPINION OF THE count. 


Complainant filed her bill te recever what che paid on 
@ contract for the purchase of a lot. The cause was referreé te 
& Master, who recommended that a deerce be entered finding that 
the contract wes ultra vires as to the bank, and void, that com- 
Plainant recover vhat she had paid defendant thereunder, with 
interest, anc that the contract be canceled and returned to 
Gefendent, “ané by removing ae « cloud upon title any clains 1 
recorded er otherwise, which she asserted or asserts to said | 
deseribed property, of which others cleiming under her assert or 
have saeserted." The master's report was approved and ¢eonfirmed 
in all reapects “with the exeeption ef the finding * * * concerning 
the $600 paid by comploinant to Nick EH. Ellis for defendant .® 
As to that item, the uaster found that complainant was mot entitled 
te its return, but the decree provided that ahe should recover ite 

The foliewing are the material findings and conclusions 
of the master's report, as redrafted: 


ene & — 
"2- That defendant, Philip State Bank and Trust Company, 
Was at all times an Illinois corporation, * * *, authorized to 
perform the acts set forth in the statute, including the power, as 
@ bank, to loan money on reel estate and to accept and execute 
trusts, and also had the powers conferred upon banks end trust 


companies. / 


— 


ree bersaus a sored * os bo 





"3S. That complainant * * * is the widow of Patrick 
Francis Curtis * * *, 

“4. That on February 23, 1928, *The Nick Me. Ellis 
Company (Net Ines)» by Nick Me Ellis, acknowledged receipt of 
$600 from Patrick Curtis on a document (which is in evidenee 
herein as Complainant's Bxahibit 1 of December 50, 1950), which 
entitled Patrick Curtis to bid at an auction sale of lots 
éGeseribed as ‘In the Rebey~Edgewater Golf Club Addition to 
Regers Park in Cook County, 'llinoia,' and naming the conditiona: 
one of which wan that the suecessful bidder must pay one-third of 
the entire amount of his successful bid (on which $600 should 
apply) and the bidder must execute im writing and deliver to the 
vender a contract satisfactory to the vendor, which contract 
must be couplied with, to entitle the purchaser to a warranty 
deeds and also required the purchaser to poy the balance in 
equal mont. inatalleente, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, 
payable mont on all deferred payments ‘At the effice of Philip 
State Bank and Trust Company, 7001 North Clark street, Chicago, 
Tilineis,’ extending ever a —*— of not te exceed forty-cight 
months from date of wale. ‘ document <oes not state whe 
‘the vendor’ is. 

“S. That said Patrick Gurtis head entered into the 
transaction cescribed ag a resuit of one or more visite mace to 
him at his residence some weeks before by one James + Theobald, 
@ real ectate broker, whe deseribed to him the location of the 
land which was to be auctioned as being in the vicinity of Albion 
and Seeley streets and stated an auction would be held to bid 
for the various lots at a date to be amounced, Patrick Curtis 
amd Anna Curtis visited the leenlity either in the company of 
Theebalé (or a man named Curl Berlosan, whe had brought Thesbald 
inte contact with Patrick Curtis) and enee again before the 
auction date. 

"G6. That Patrick Curtis died ‘April 3, 1928. That the 
auction sale was set for April 12, 1928, at Heoliisen's Hall at 
Deven and Clark streets, and Anna Curtis received notice thereof 
gigned *Hiek Me Dliis, by Theobaid.' That two days before the 
auction Theebald told Anma Curtis she was eligible te bid and 
changed the name Patrick te Amma on the receipt document herein- 
before deseribed os Complainant's Exhibit 1 * * *. That Anne 
Curtis attended the auetion and after some three or four lots 
had been bid and sold, Lot 63, shown on a map ox paper on the 
bDlackbeard as being the northwest corner of Albion and Gecley 
atrects with about 100 feet frontage on Albion and 74 feet on 
Seeley «as offered and after bids ef $240 and $245 per foot were 
made Amma Curtis bid $250 and she “as declared to be the success- 
ful bidder. 

"9. That the vorrect legal description ef said let 
ig « (Here foliows the legal description.) 

"6. That within a few weeks after the auction, Anna 
Gurtis ealled at Phillip State Bank and Trust Company in response 
to a letter from the bank and sew Mr. Conrardi of the bank, who 

; as ready, or would be ready, and she eaid 
she would be back in o week with the money when her affairs were 
settled so she could get the money. That she came back later and 
paid Conrardi $5,400 cash, and he gave her a receipt, which said 
receipt is in evidenee herein as Complainant's Uxhibit 3 of 
Pecember 30, 1930, which receipt is dated Hay 19, 1925, ae 
‘Philip State Benk and Trust Company,’ and recites that é sum 
of $5,400 is the balance of the one-third down payment on let in 

Régewater Golf Club Addition and that ‘said sw is to be 
held in eserow by the undersigned untdl the plat for said addition 
has been recorded and a contract executed by said Amma Curtis for 


ee 


gdolaici te wehiw off oi * * © tianihalqune tat am 
o® & * givuwd ocari 
s ree X C2 eerie’ ao 

te sehesexn begbofwomion gat 2K xokk of * cn 
somphive ai at doldw) dmemuseod 2 ae abies 3 Molstet sot Be 

Hold g( OSCE .O8 vedmoved to £ shdldnl —— an abene 
ates te efoe moliqwe ne te bhd af aituwd Aoistad beLiidas 
es MeisiobA dwk> theb wedawepbie-yedell ed? al’ es Bedi sonnd 
saneltiomes ene gelmen bom ',alomhiil yysoes deed al dunt wregot 
to outils ~omo goss wsbhid Iyiaapoone eid gerie agw dokde Re ane 
afveds O0O% of¢ deldw wa} Si¢ Lvtcaveows etd to tauemn orien add 
wit of sevifeh bus gauigiuw @k edweoxe gnu tobbld ong dan 83* 
svaxtwee dokdy «tebwoy edi of yrotectaigas dosteta « a 
YWoariaw 6 oF wratlougd wid oltitgoe o2 ithe bailgnas.od gamm 
nt eguaied ots Ynq of Tosaeusg of? bosispet onde. bee ghaed 
ques Toy txpo cog h ta teotetnml dilw sadmomhiaders | Laie pe 
@rtint %o ealtio oft JA’ séremyag Seoxustos Le wo qiriinom eld EH 
eononiat gdeotde Arak déael LOOT gynqaed dnutT bam — 28 —* 
—ã— besoxe ot dem to belsey # teve gah hwedun: ' exhomi iit 
watt stata Jom seo a monase ob © .okas Ww edad wort acid eta 
eek 'aobear “aa? 

etd oiek dosotne had ghd tatsiel phos sad? — 
ot shes ablaly OxGM x 9880 to dieeet 2 ou bediwogos soitonanatd 
shisdesd! +. aeainl eno yd oroled aaeow soe oanebiaet eid ga ake 

ons to mokdwool adi mid os oedizoced ody . todo’ etadas Leet, 
mobdba a Ag 8g ave mi gated an benelioun, od of saw doldw Bape 
hid.o2 Sind od bivew solivws ma bedade bua adsocta Yolo) dae 
big Melzied.. .boomens ed as e82b ata ated ies’, ig te? 

ta Whatwde odd wi secéie —— eg ootielv et? ‘ ak be 


odd dxated ie po ay akg 68 ie mo tbs tat ae Aike 5 


gntd dae? 080d 48 ald eheaad dodeday ean eee 


#o iigh a'aoalif£ek ta ,BBCL «Si yo 20% 8 may tae ne * 
Roptadly sotto bevicoes altucd mts haw yude: ae rd rot 
YE os ot ob | = 


ois opted eyeb ows tant '. ‘ 
— wo jqieoes ee mo arms oF —— oe ott = bes 4 iz 





























at 
bos bid o¢ ofdlyiis new eda eidc  eumh “Sie! 
Gail ,t # © £ Sidised | daaala 


“etek — so sould enon todta hoa moidowe 
ao TaKeg te Gee « whe anans cab tal tie ia 
Yaloot ime meldti te «enmuen duomifiea ess galed 
‘0 deck o bas meidls mo egetaotk dost Ou —— iw ade 
eitew Jook tog 6S tee GES te ehh <edéta boxe the alee 
~neotwe off $¢ of Deotefest ace ate bee O ays — ‘ant —5 


— 
det bime to moldgizonek Lapel goorves eaft daclf “é 
{ol sgt tone’ — ond —2 —— 
ibe. ettottoun odd w9tis oteow wet « abdtiw tast . f 
eatoqess mi cnageod: desxT San tek edeae — da bling asad 
eer glnad si9 lo lites «wh noe pe cr i oe re Ry 
bise ou ome gyaeor ed biwew to qykess sav doaxénes. wild. aed bfod 
sxew —— 19 mode Yoram og Mote aoow a.nk Sy mw ole 
dna ssdel goad saao sale tad? » genom acd fog bises a holds 
ee, ——— a zak ory —* hms stigao 


: — — 
* * — — ——— * 









ae biog! gadd bow om 
on te 2 ‘kar we wet tel old Lhon 


SOT altuys atti Sian of 





232 


the purchase of eaid property in accerdenee with the terme of 
sale slready made.’ That the document bears the note ‘Escrow 
666e* That a week later; Saturday, May 26, 1928, she again 

saw Conrardi ot the bank and signed the agreement dated April 
12, 1925, being om acreement to purchace the premises described 
in paregraph 7 of this report, whieh said agreement is in eyi- 
denee herein as Complainant's Rxhibit 2 * * *§ thet eoid egree- 
ment was oetuslly executed om May 26, 1928, and is between 
Phillip State Bonk and Truet Company of Chicozo, ov Trustee, 
first party and Anne Curtis, second party. 

“9. Thet Anna Curtis on May 19, 1923, by the payment 
of $5,400 and the prior payment of 7600 had paid $6,000 or onee- 
thire down on the contract price of 314,0003; that on October 20, 
1928, she paid $360 interest and (1,500 principal; thet on April 
175 1929, she paid 2315 interest and $1,500 principal, leaving 
a balence of $9,000 as of thnt date and has vinee paid nothing. 
That peaywente of interest were computed from April 12, 1928. 
That on Merch 13, 1930, she filed the contract with the Recorder 
of Deeds * * % 

“10. That said egreement, “xhibit 2, in the legal 
deseription reciter that it is ‘according te the Plat thereof 
reeorded aw Document Number .1024624,' but said nunber is a 
cleriesl errer for Number 10024624, which is the correct number 
of record for this plat, while the erroneous pumber recited 
umber 1024524 is a chattel mortgage dated 1858 between strangers 
te thie suit. This error was immaterial and was rot a misreprestae 
tion by whieh complainant was or eould have been misled. 

"41. That said agreement * * * provided that prior te 
March 1,» 1929, the first perty shall be the sole judge of local 
improvenents whien shall or shall not be made in streets or alleys 
in the subdivisions that varegr twelfth provides that the first 
party agrees ‘that prier to varch 1, 1929, it will either ins$all 
by private contreet, without expense to the second party’ certain 
described tmitial improvements such as sewer, gas main, coment 
sidewalk and street paving ‘or pay all assescmentese therefer as 
and when such imprevenents are completed’; that these gave the 
firat party the right as agninet the seeond party to be the judge 
of lowal improvements, and as to initial improvements the option 
was given the first party either to install them by private con- 
traet or pay assessments therefor: when such improvements are 
oc eteé; that the firet party did net prier to March 1,» 1929, 
imetall the cement walks or atreet pavine; that there is no evi- 
dence that there have been any assessments therefor er that the 
first party hee been called upon te pay eveh sgsescmentae That 
it appeare thet the cement sidewalks or atreét paving has never 
been completed. That it is elleged by the first party im its anewer 
that it willing te pay any assesements when madee 

"12. I find that there kas been ne breach of paragraphs 
eleventh and twelfth of the agreement by the first party thereto, 
the defendsent here, xs the came sre 2 mere options 

"13. That Anna Curtis has been at all times aware that 
the cement sidewrlk and street peving wee not berun or completed 
by the first party prior to March 1, 1929, or prior to April 17, 
2929, when she rede a payment of principal and interert on said 

2 t, of $21,500, and of $315, respectively; that if there 
Wes any default ef firet ehe Waived eame and retified same 
and ig estopped mow to game Up as a default which would permit 
her to cancel the sald Agreement. 

“34. That on May 16, 1926, there was recorded in the 
effice ef the Recorder of Deeds as Document 100245235 and recorded 
im Book 260 of Plats at page 24, by John lL. iukanitseh, Yrnest 


—* antes set Alby Gotnttedes at yorereNg bias ‘=e denttomeg: axl 
worosd' s¢on otf azgod tamawped edd dad? '.oham ybauzte ‘vkae 

ttiega dfs vot. yntradad «t9tal dood s YadT 4 Be 

L2xyA Astard ——— eel? baugie bee aged e3 

hodixouss asaiertg wf% esederg of saemeotye ne gicted 2OREL 9S 

«tye ub pi doonsocge biea deidw ,dceqes ald? te tT bs ie 
-99%s0 blea dal? ¢* * # 2 sdetdah otenentalqmed eg 2 —* — 
Miewdsd ul bea 4OSOE 40S Gel ge betuoex® —iLoude — 

ie eee ea recog re * ‘Chayaet sett foe vee peer My rise 
i Deooe yas PPO mee Lec ga * 
— seewerged weld ye ager: F qa ao eléeed eon ted? ; 
whey we 900.55 2 bet 0004 ko tromysqg todag oss ‘one Why 
08 vedose@ aG dad? 4O0G, 822 to gelce doaviaas oft a6 prod | 
— we Searls jlaqiesieg GuGql) daa Seovedmt 0864 bhag ote” 
gitivicl plaqivaivg City le bus tewtedat Sie) bleq ade , 088! 
sgaidgon blag ovtie aad Wis dau dads Id ea 009985 to ‘wort 
-  gBRRL ghl Liega meth pedyguoe wren daotedat to adeerty: 
—— wild dike Goatduap eke io kt oxi 406es acd — 


——* wie nf 48 Pidhind — —— pene ant Ort: 
hooteds Juki at a8 gaibvooes’ gpk a2 teda sodigax mort 
RR todo Stew dud. ———— ————— 
| tedaes erroe os ⸗ «28888002 * wet to" 
vos Reekeesx vedas aueotourte ord oLisir’, or 
evomieria meouted G62L beded ogrgttom. fostado ‘eat rd 
soteometals « Jot aew Ses Leivé taunt ger terre itt — * 
sho gtu seed @ved bios co eow —— 
oF tebuq dat pebivete e— “ ? oe es > eae 
 faoek bo epbut elon oft od Liga YPxaq. sony: ont « — 
elie it etewite wi sin or oner ‘<Lede ey Lleele sie tri woes ye 
Salt off sot? ssbivery ASYLart qgedecenr sealed — 
— .OSGL of Aan pe tole hes 
padres "Crag baowee wilt oF sense suordetw tee 
ditemey (nla com stewen os moste sdremevorgat 
ge tetetody —— Lia gvorte 
ond eras orertt tase — ——— prey Tage, 
ogaul aid ef oF vietsic Sacene ? dentone wae tats ° 
aetsge oft eénemevorqmd Leolgial of us Baw ens 
-nuo atavivg yo mois Liston es “othe vee 4 
Ste aditomevorqe: Moue rede Axo Ta redd eru 
c@S0L gk dots of tetuq tom BF8 ‘ung — * pit 
~iyd ot al oved? voele trate Sootia ce 1 : 
add tat? xo noLereitd einemestwed Yee ted evedt * 
Sait setrenaesuee done yay of neoqy bailey meed watt’ 
‘ever ent antver teoxte vO eiloawebia bg righ * 
TOWNES ost ai ytrveq terit add yo bogetin af st 
Bhat mente atnemearene 7* 
ageted to dosed om weed aad erate tettt | it — 
— Kenn toutt es yd saonestgs etn ae Site. 
i etoliqe oven @ vie amex of ao oto tne 
outid oupwe aewtd Lie is weed ead atdxeD one gant 
bedetaues re avyed ted saw guivag’ Feeata bere aie 
eVE Lines of torre se eOSVL .k dou ot solr x 
bine We: ape gp: bets Lore tote felts se Sas “eh 
otods M2 tndz § ——— 48 — 
ian oehilves hes gare tye 
3 tenreg ‘odusow: As Lib iLueied —— wr 


add Kt debtooes Rae one; — 
*2 bee BReaSOGL we ait 
a oa * aioe ed 













































’ 
4 
, 
i 
a 
i 
‘ 
a P- 
4 
1 





Oe oP ee Ses 


Se ee ee 


whe 


Wilhelm Ehrlich, Frank Portman and Katherine we Portman, his 
wife, and Peter Trauseh, a subdivision and plat thereof entitled 
Rebey-Rdgevater Golf Club addition to Rogers Park, etae, dated 
May 11, 1928, with certifiente of the Land Surveyor dated “ay 4, 
1928, and approved by the Examiner of Subdivisions of Chicago on 
May 15, 1928, which includes the premises hereinbefore described 
as in the agreement between said partiese Said plat is in evidence 
herein as Complainant's Mxhibit 1 of January 20, 1931; that said 
plat was recorded three days before May 19, 1923, when Anna Curtie 
paid $5,400 at the Phillip State Bank and Trust Company and ten 
@ays before May 26, 1925, when she signed the Agreement beor 
date of be A29 19283 thet it appears from anid plat that J 
Le Lukanitsch was the owner of that piece of property in which the 
property herein deseribed as contracted to be purchased by Amma 
Curtis was containede 

"15. That on November 2, 1928, there was recorded in 
the office of the Kecorder of Leeda, ag Document Noe 10195860, a 
deed of trust dated October 29, 1928, between Johm Le Lukanitsch 
and Sadie Lukaniteeh, his wife, James 1+ Theobald and Lillian ». 
Theobald, his wife, ae grantora, and Phillip State Bank anéd Trust 
Company of Chicago, as trustee, under a trust agreement dated 
October 20, 1923, Trust Noe 668, certain deseribed real eatate 
whieh includes the real estate herein deseribed, and said document 
is in evidenee herein ae Complainant's Exhibit < of January 20, 
1931. That said deed gives the trustee full power and authority te 
manage the property, sell or contract to sell, etce, and provides 
that the interest of the beneficiaries is declared to be personal 
property and to be in the earnings arising from disposition of 
the premises ‘the intention hereof being to veet im the ssid Phillip 
State Bank and Trust Company of Chicago the entire legal and 
equitable title in fee in and to all of the premises abeve deseribed,' 
That this instrument was executed about six months after the execution 
on Vay 26, 19238, of the agreement for sale between Phillip State 
Bank and Trust Coe, of Chicago, as trustee, and said Amma Curtisge 
That no trust deed prior to the one of October 29, 1923, was put 
in evidence and no testimony as te any prior trust deed was givene 

"16- That James A- Theobald has yed Wiek Me Ellis 
& Ge. (mot ines), to sell his property and thet he was employed by 
said Ellis Coe, as a oaleswan of the property when he approached 
Potriek Curtis in February, 1928 (according to Theobald's own 
testimony) and he testified that he owned the Let 65 which Anma 
Curtis bid for on April 12, 192%, but whether he owned all of the 

eperty which was to be auctioned docs not 2* That said 

Pheabale made representations with reference to this real estate 
of a puffing charscter and indulged in opinions of present value 
and future value and profits, both to Patrick Curtis and later te 
Anna Curtis, but that he alse took Patrick and ‘mma Curtis te 
view the premises and gave them a basis upon which to form their 
epinions, and thet his puffing talk of present and future values 
did not constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation. 

"17. That «et the auction sale on April 12, 1928, Anna 
Curtis wee at full liberty to use her judgment as to what ict to 
bid for and how much to bid,and knew what it would cost her and 
what the terms of payment would be, and even if Theobald ——— 
or urged tocher that she bid for Lot 63, as ‘nme Curtis claims, 
there is no evidence that she followed his suggestion as a result 
of fraud, undue influence or otherwise so #5 te wake her choice 
other than voluntary er so as te make his conduct fraudulent; that 
even if hie conduct from the beginning to the end of the deal was 
fraudulent such conduet could net be charged to defendant, Phillip 
State Bank and Trust Coo, of Chieago, as trustee, or otherwise 
since Theobald was not claimed to be the agent of defendant. 


abe 


eict gnawedcel ok eubiedésd bie neametot daett gtotfcd’ miodli2y 
befiivne teased gel Sue neluiviidpe @ adousart tede% fee — * 
— ysote etiel axwgel oF meitipha erlS tied tedw 4 
eb yak ats To sao ltiteo geiv — ee 
xe Qgsokd? Ye angleiviiced te tanimext ode yd Yeveraga 
padiseceh ouetodnteced esalsmry aft sotrvLout dotadw ,880f Duet cn Aya 
eprshive ak et tekg biet seelbiiog bina smeected Soren oa ge mi an 
Sikwa salt 1LEOE .OS Yusemint Bo * didisxi o'tuantalges> ae 3 
eitcad sith mesh , oReL vet wort etored awysk pn bebeevot es pty 
nes hes yenqumd gout? ore tae go0d8 Gli Lins ef fe OOD—SE Bhs 
toad sesame ery ede Sonate efe sory ,8@8eL . 58 yor etoted w 
yb dette tolg Ghes ment a Sou Ls #& seule peReT ySl Lisee to etab 
mie Rolie a2 ydeopesg of seelig Seid tw pope * —* —— — 
‘ eres oF cits LINED Be % o% 
— Seniaides sew aboua 
at beivoest new osodd g880L eS T6eevvoR wo dad? «8t* 
RH ,ORROTLOL salt doewwoel ga .abeed to tebeoeed alt Yo ‘sottke este 
doxtinasivd +2 met — 5 t ,08 vodoeod Sovab dniesd Yo boed — 
‘ei pabiint bes Sledood? «* * deter olf edops innit ———— 
eur? Sea gaat stad’ qt Lr tee bat guxedartg pa eotiw eis , kiadouit 
bates shewerrys Janae @ t8ebew .setant ome LfS. J —— 
atadas icou sedixseweh atadres 2860 «ot Prone yn eS8Rl @ 
Saomppeb hiae das _sodizess shoudd ‘edasee Looe auld tes tg —— 
408 ‘Geeuwas to & tidtdxl wt dmeaiaiomoS ay level senebive mat 
as — fae “oreq Lfyt sedauyve off sovig beef Bhan ted? eer 
aobiveny hae yvoois giles od sawndieo ve Liege gyPteqeng ont eget — 
Lanouseg od oF votaiood ai aelvobel tomd ale te: Savcerek pera é al 
te uetdiaoge i) aoxt grielia sgateteo od ni o¢ of dete EFree 
qi Lika’ tise edd ut ga0v 03 nittod tosxed nelinedat acs! seater 
“Bes Legok ovrtine wil? anenino Ke ae? ‘aus 
*bodhisess evade eanimouy off 26 Lia of bre ak oot mt. te aide Ind key 
webdenaxe edd «edte adtnon xia twods bedwesxe asw Sepawitdent aldd de 
#ind2 Ghilinl meevded alse «ot snemspatyge en? Bo ,eReL re Sat ah me 
eakdwd seams bien bee ~osdanit an 4o Ft) bm 
sug naw gGS8E 422 <ededoG to ene od wed 
steyviy caw Sooo geutd wodeg yaw Od Ga’ yaomidee at j 
etiie: «a doi toyotges wat bindeui? .A geomet Prony o BZ 
* bavedgne ase ef duld bes yoregerq etd Shee od «(ont ni oe 
wi tede ydseget, off Yo samelae ana yood: — desi 


re: gl bladood?T of gadozwoen) B8OL eyeewadet af abe 
— Heise CH 201 wld Seewo ——— ad bua ( ynoatded: 
eae 2e fle herve ad sialdedw Jud glS@L gat Lirgs mm te? bid atrwi 
‘hia dad? .casqga ton weed Soneltous e@ 03 aaw doide Yxoqer 
wtaias foes abcd of sonmtcter diiv saoitainvanuges sbnm 
 «-odey tevaosg ko anginiga at bogdabni da·. —— at 
OF “etet ban aiécud dalvtel ed adod qatitovq bate exav oxuty? bie 


ov alirTa® sarc tem toluted dood sade ad & é tae 
‘thodd mwret of doide weqe alead @ aeit ae pelea 


eveyg Sus esaterong oils we. 
poner omist bee dmeseng ke died gutting etd dadd. ban ,emolots 
" sol lodnesemgetai«a éusisivert a edvelienos don 
sence. 880s esl Licg oe ofae mobdeun ods ta, ¢ad® s¥I* = | 
of tek darty of 26 Sesomhet tod gee ef yttedii Lint. ta car 
4 (aa Gece bivow #2 Jato wood bas. bid ed dow wed bow tot 
hetadgaun disdesdt ti neve baw +0¢ aluow saomyag to wieed ods . 
qatiats efdan amet te 969 god get oid one gold avaos 
iveat 6 aa motigognes ahd Sewellet oie aacd eonobly on ak 
soleds vod olan oF a0 on eelwred?o xy somemtiad eubiew «his 
todd jStoLwhuert touhaeo eit ovee OS wn on 
aan Legh oft to bee ods of wiinctyed ot) mort —838 
— ————— Sopwatio od Jon bios Jouhnoo pathy 
— eedtercastbe 264 Getanr? way ‘So qe00 Seuvt dna wi 


| —â — > teoge onte od oe ‘bimtn ke dou oat 

































~fe 


"18. That there is no evidence of any 
defendant and Lukeniteeh, Theobald or — ty nea pong ag po 
ab & banks wee 06 éngare im the busine y the defendant, 
te vielate any laws of Illinois, and eae SE Se Srae Fens estate, or 
defendant had any part er interest in the sellin —qS 
Be Bliie, Net Ine Bf & Campaign of Nick 
sale Pan +» James Theobald or any others, or the suction 
gales ow i ey subsequent agreement to sell (Complainant's sxhibit 
—* fen Ay nt the time same was executed; that the only evidence 
Sewhe’ tne * defendant was acting as an agent te reecive payment of 
— * thr 4 pene. etce, as banks customarily do» and te . 
3 — bank was later mace trustee by deed of trust exceuted 
defendant tee —— org ey ES | 4/20/32.) 5 ae See 
| @ A urtis 4 
* ie actually executed “ay 26, 1628 lecushataent*s 6— 
. o 2 0/30) asserted that it wae aeting in the capacity of 
* ee and not of owner and thet the fact ia that defendant ww 
rg owe trustee any decument in evidence here except the 
ust decd of October 29, 1925. or over five months afte 
asserted itself to be a trustee in the agreement to —8*4 ves, 
poor ge | described imaediately abeves that defendemt itself, or its 
—— Gonrardi, mace no misrepresentations te complainant or her 
eecased husband in his lifetime, and is not chorgeable with any 
alleged misrepresentations of others not its agente; but that the 
representation by defendant that it was acting ae ‘trustee’ in 
executing the agreexent te sell to Anna Curtie wan a felee repre- 
sentation ae it did mot become « trustes until over six months 
afterwards, as above recited; that this false representation ia a 
material one, if es a matter of law the cofendant bank Wag not 
setually a trustee eof said property «t the time it agreed toe sell 
SOOT Soetesett etnias BoTsiai’ant 
¥ eeqnuge wes 
power of defendmt to make \ _ 
19. That if April 12, 1928, the date of the suction, 
be considered te be the date of the sgreement to sell here 
attacked, then there is ne evidence to show that the defendant 
wae the seller, at that time, or had any interest im ssid auction. 
That if the attacked agreement to sell be relied on te sustain 
complainant's bill, then it is clear thot it was actuclly exeouted 
on May 265 1928, oftex the plat had been filed. That the fact that 
interest paysents were computed frou April le, 1928, cannot change 
the fact that the actual date of execution of the agreement sought 
to be cancelled waa May 26, 1928, on that date the % 
had already been filed, as otherwi cording uuuber not 
have been printed im said agreement. That even if the plat head not 
been filed prior te the agreement to sell so as to 9° oy defendant 
to the penalties of the statute, that would mot make ¢ agreenont 
void or illegal, espeeisliy ss it saused no mistake as to the 
identity of the lot to be purchased. That defendant recorded anid 
agreement with the hecorder of Deeds ae Document Noe 10616556 on 
Mareh 189 1930, and thereby ratified said agreeuent and ig estopped 
from conten@ing that the agreement is void because no plat had 


been duly fileds ; 

“90, That under the facts as found hereinabove the relief 
prayed for should be ed or refused upon a proper decision of 
the amet 3. contentions of complainant and defencant 

*la inant contends that as there was ne evidence 
that defendant was a trustee other taan the trust deed exeeuted 
October 29, 1928, which was more than gix months after April 12, 
1928, the date of the auetion sale, ond more than five sonths after 
May 26, 1928, the date of exceution of the agreement to sell, dated 
April 12, °1926, in such event the defendant bank 

the 


1 


aegwdod. sugies ye Te vomeblys ef st ated tach . 82h" 
of onbst rar pty dodo * ecimite we LadeatT sivet ican. baa 3 
to gttadws feos aptiiea te agogtesd so Mi syegne e? per 
sedt wanovtve es el ound’ Sua eeboal lll Te ewek wets | 
 gokt te sgdsqmes guiiier onl’ at deemnset x6 freq yoe hat 
one afd 1H qguteddo Ye Be ofadeost eamah quant gO8 gad, 
“— a'ieecielgwme?} Lies wt smeawstga Snegpaninn oe 
opnohtve vino edd fatd phetunsxe var omea nals ons te —— 
RA ae grivos age Snabaetob odd daca @. 
ge bem 4oh ary eens atnead at ¢6980 graze. el syonte gotnoml 
gadda bus re Fg 2 ke Lapeer se * ————— trace 
* boob audewsa > 
bodman Genet (203s At Yo 8.2 bubdtas nam Haak ose aad fee xe seule 
— ak Lise, me te 4bletu0 , of thon oF anemeesge offs ys Sas 
didised a dmuniafgaod) SCL .88 yak bodwoons eliantos 
to Ydinngen old md ym ged now 2 dadd. bodtenca (oz! 
w tmebaotes date af So0% oe Aadd dae Sone: ‘36. com bate 
‘$geaxd Sund 9 gomobiwa ss 5 sates of: — = — 
tt gecte ashinom agit tove 60 « 
gtr of Log 3 edd Bi 
adt 4@ ythvedi smeoneteh sade tm vinta 
coud i Snant algnes 9 ney ye 
iv ¢ <a 86 B iS « 
ole dads oa —— aa dea aredio ‘se we 
ah *evdauad* en wat OG aa — * — qe aets 
anges goket & eov eitewS oma @ corms ede 
etttues ala Yore Sivas eolaisy a —B me at. ~ odd 
#4 of noltadwewowmot ealok gidd tod pbsdioey aveda az «ah 
fon ew otad os wad TO tosses @ aa Th * 
—— — ie 
‘om G2 dacetee tea @ oe % avai tar b 
—— aon sell ——— — Rete | — + er 


" ghoksqstes was te oben @ed gBG0L ghk tings Af 
ered Iloa of teertoetan od? te edad oat a ae Se » 
dnuahes'teh salt. Sede woe of — 2* ‘ex et ore? — Sea: 
sMoitonn ioe mh @eovetat yee ut co gemtt dare se gist ion” 
Rkadjeua O¢ we botiex of tLod of dremestge ta omy 
bedsro gic Yifnctos saw 3h Sorts — ak * —J Ad mee 
fond dont odd Sad? sdottt aeed bat tate wilt —* —— 
sgredo domme ,O80L 4h Lisgs newt Pride 
dries Sremee Tye ed? Ye goldgooxs te o¢a5 
‘pd o@eo Seals oo * 5 
gon. oe todsum gol bcoo? pe 
gem kad. daiq eff 2h seve dad “sdeens 
thatucted. Soebdus of ax on Lioe et 
sewAROKaN wan ¢om 'iuew tats —* 
aad ot ac OSedalia om obatad €2£ oa” 
bkae Opatoowr dnsbuoked 2* ‘sheen ta a8 


—8 ‘gt bus gnomeg 
sake on eausvod 

















































— 


tolkex oct evadantvted beta? —— ‘ate on — fant lee ; 
‘te — —A—— > oe bednaty Oe 6 


oem | * * Aact⸗ 
bh, * T dino a. ee ; gods ae er 
bea — oF 5 ) MOhigvexe te stab , 
— coat tebe a —* ioase # | Bre 
“at —2 tides don five of tuense' ee. 
“hatiattdsdas feed bed Yaeguee duit? 2 an worcedtan * w neque “i 





aie 


eo 
and fixed by a deed of trust to it making as Re org bby: red 
and that as there was ne such nar gg sell to complainant, inn 
er eix months after the ae a not as a trust company » 
Gurtia, the cefendant ban . hae it would have no power or 
— Gentes es ut to sell and thet guoh agreement 
authority te execute the agreeme Se powers of a bank, und nes 
wae void as exceeding the pagel ye Wac a mullity which could net 
merely voidables that being vo tion of a deed of trust, or be 
be cured hy any subsequent — by omy act of Anmm Curtiag 
possible of ratification subseque hat although ac a bank At 
*(v) Defendant contends * — agreumans te eonvey weak 
oath A Ry Bao Es own, but which 4t 
property which it did not presen ulfill sue agrecwent, nevertheless 
expected to acquire in tine bay h company, and that it bad wer 
Cefenéant had sugh power as s trustec property as te which it 
ta convey at a future date, i ru the future date for conve yanee 
expected te be made a trustee cy — Wan @vented & 
would arrive; and that in oe the agreement it would be 
pa arg Bind —32* ya Mon conveyance te complainant, amma 
ed us ° . Jefendon that ag Joma 
—8 vA secondary oF arlostank aak teienaek' a — LV» F nga, 
Curtis made paynen exe cubed » 
per wag seg ha ee My nage ged yg = prt yew Be "sneke iy er teeae 
Fatified the transs she recorded with the Kecorde 
power bank, and as ) both ratified the i 
Rey ee a =f Ty ae 
original agreenen ry contention of defenda 8 
sam@e uch secondary ! wt ig not od af 
=e boo to ee]l was merely woh waren —* corporate powers 
the agreement to sell was a void —* secondary contention must ‘ 
of the — 8B82 tn main contentions of the complainan 
depend upon the d¢ , of 
ant ie wontent ion 
A TH ayy 
— 8 autnoritice therein eited) 
259 * agipe 2% ere 
eqritorcst moa Gended by the Supreme cosrty —— 
ß ecRen as Gus 
— — I find thet a 411 suff ietently 
material allegetions of her er to gell wade by defendant ** 
te entablish that 9 —598* defendant hag = —— reta 
— Sachataans kon & right (oe. weertve Wank a1 a Se bat 
complainant has a rig dseur id to defendant, but 
—8* all interest 7— Seite fortis os Curt _ ony acs 
not the $600 —* at the auotion sale; ——— 
ivi of bidding ' defendant and can 
ioe uttered to oe — alk tant dbenea aemaa oo peaviae ual 
lopment yids teak somphatean Anna protec ade ee 
shoulé also provide cordation of ssid agre her. 
loud om title her re ther clouds erented by 
the Recorder of "have no alternat tye tha MF gag BE 
. leinant# 
tered accordingly t are with comple inan 
that a deeree be on tal bill of complein that 
2 omen 1 and voids 
that seid agreement to ao23 was and tp ruil and —S 
defendant —2 tg: B thee by her pate high rages 4 ef 
all sums of grsneiges lek Me Ellis, not ince, for — 
except $600 paid to thet complainant shall % to peli 
tien sales % said en 
Fo ey a 
2 A omnes ae & cloud upon t erte te said ¢ escribed propert 
Generates, which she asserted er ase 


sedate Latteo we 32 yattdom 23 G2 Fund Yo besh 2 “gf bextt be 
ett fhm durtd Yo dee6 Howe ot wae brane a ya 

* — of Low eb samaso'tga ond wets wi : J 
aunemmer test? 4 an Jan rs ass used Seababs teh 

' — seweg oe owed Siow fond a 08 bx Mme — 
denmoetys ‘foc thé tae Ling 42 tmmapetys oto viwoRce oe —— 
Jen tie wie ‘gat iootas Yo biey saw 
gaa Sheets dente “orion x * ak Stow gated fats t r e 
oe ae gtourd 18 bees » tO aolivetae daoupoatea yas YY ee fete i 
—— such ke doa yan yd Se tees tives es opal 

: oh duet a ns dyuedila pe en — ie)" eine 

Lae Naetnos o?, fowmerys aa oles 4 —V dvs gee 

Gt ae. tse Gud gtwo Videtend Yhemostry Fou BES GL eae . 
goshedisoved ainomeargs aoe Thi thet o7 emte at tinge of —53 
‘ewoq bert — énberr Bas 
$i doisw 22 ga GIKeQOT| qoutuirsd eo goted oreiei @ te” oo 
—E—— ome 6 chan od Be nade 
“ eedanse aew yliauses ah eee mt toss Ore qevivza | 
ad bdvow ot —— erg tod o 
OS gat a Qi cameyovues Lauase wii odas 62. tage. 
aay. os tame of daedields te mal tassaos — A's 
sted att a. a — esta Pee jimeargat 8 




















































Steege 
a bat: ees q howe f tate —J 
— Pa cy pete dex Oia giOOE a0E J 
wptand — — begeedae eele Som ‘1 
eh taeduetes Te eadtessene eintanses fue 


by i bes 6% and goitahigva Yeotom asw {lee of) feemees 
wiewoN oferogres odd beoyed gen Blovy & xen ag a? Sirenoys 
fu stelinedege yYuiaesen doite e —— —— 
——— and te — as Besa eh ast wat. * — ans | a 






. —* nein ® fad ye PEER 
Mas — — mies —* ba fA oe ae 4 
. A eo wits . Deus 1 eases 
gh Pees — —— — 2 a 
ee eve. gah? end 4 I — 
———— bite ILE vad te sets He 
ete hieheetas Ye oben Loe Oo tomo mm & ae 
—— —— ——— ea nad — — ————— v beef 
> mive tin dood eriewss. 
he ee ainabastes ed biog dtinmkeLqume = ies ru A; ‘nd ate 
e@Rie sid gelvaws aed te shea welsdail “et diag | 
— éitonbakqnes inte (elon mptteum ef? oe getbaid to ately 
gadioonse bee dasbasted ag *— “since of 
= edi vem 2* bisoale oorpab svete a — 
*% Shweta qudédaud BEES a inanigdgne 
dete tf ‘ties a¢ dmoueotge bdve Ig. 5 
ated wd bedeese « —* — 
——— — ' 
% pe. ad 3. — 
“Tinant odquoe sfiw aim — aoe cj Hae 
age Sear Sree * 1* ae 
Aganos J— 





eae od i * * Rhee tae 

: od Seem 

| on bel ‘ 
——— herder 6 3 Bsn 8 * ——— > body 


«Yo 


ef which others claiming under her assert or have asnertedy 
that the costs be deereed agoinet defendant, including the 
master’s and stenographer's feem, upon this reference, to be 
by the court taxed as a part of fne covets of this suit. * * #* 
Ag origimally drafted, complainant filed certain objcetions 
to the report, which were all sllewed. In ite brief defendant 


states that “the findings of fact in the master's report are in 
accoréange with the evidence.” 

Defendient contends: “If ome secka to recover from a 
corporation the amount paid ueder s contract entered inte with such 
corporation as trustee, and sues the corperstion as trustee, there 
ean be no recovery against the corporation except ae trustee and 
the party suing con not agcert that the corporation did not have 
corporate power to act as trustee in mueking seach contracts" that 
“shen a purchaser at an auction sele seeks to recover in equity 
the money paid to a bank under « contract entered inte by such 
purchaser with this bank oe trustee of the vendor, and pursusnt to 
the terme of such auction sale, and this bank was not, ani in entering 
inte such contract did net purpert to have been, the verter at such 
auction sale, equity can mot ollow any recovery without the presence 
of auch vendor as 4 party te the euit though such recovery is sought 
om the ground thet the bank had me corporate power te enter into such 
¢ontrast as euch trustees and the objection that the vendor ic not 
made a party defendant may ve raised for the first time in this court, 
even though the sustaining of such objeesion requires the dismissal 
of the suit.” ‘The point imvolyed in these contentions seens to be 
an afterthought and was firet raised by additional assignments of 
errors. iefendant argues taat complainant sued the bank as trustee 
and thereby made the following admissions: “1+ That the vank had 
corporate power to make this contract as trustee, for if the bank 
had no such power, then obviously it was net trustees end 2+ that 


the bank is answerable to cemplainant emily as trustee » the wan bers 


4— 


ee ee 





| 
| 
| 
it 


lS 


thedttege orm vs set jad tebew. gitiotate —*2 
FE gen Spars ote ay re 4 55 * canta: * 
alte to abtage op ead te an. .boKee soe sas 

Bead ten bee niatcoe eft? thentalguoe —— 
ennbas tes Yet-ed ead eel + ewelLa ihe exow abia⸗ — 


“saa. — ——— ms —* tat sntate 
































————— — de * * oe r 
awed ten Sib cadtosogaee edt tad) drosug som fee 
“tat *tdoorineo mows pettsien eb vodewtd an du 
—— —— edo 8 
dou yd wink beweaae Pooatnoe a sober tind 8 OF — * e 
+ trusting ‘int rodney wil) To ontuund we ana als thw 7 
piteatom i be ¢40m cow and aft tn cto wal emma DO 
dots 20 woleer oxtt ymeed omet or Soa gon ote dosnanee ne 
seranety att Swetite gearoeu⁊ “tts: wette tom mao setups . | x n 
fiiguoe ah Errres vn stone sigue time eM oF yexaq @ aa-moheey dows a 
Hosen Out tens ot tower odeteqred on ‘bt tw ott rst —* “ws 
sos-nt noteoy sity taety mestoogele aft bem tootanes “a van a a: 
— E etes ect oot fee ver to — | * * 


—— san tan a — sess pases PRET 
Setar? oa Ana vty home Tahal ———— 
host stead ocft dott age * —** 
ont 9069 33 aon ꝓdocnnre wi som 
— * dow — —** —* “ 


oe 


sued only as suche“ Jefendiant cites no authority in support of 

its contention and asserts that no case ean be found in the books 
that beara upon ite It is true that severnl times in the amended 
bill complainant refers to defendant aa trustee, but it is also 

true that in a number of parngraphs in the amended bill she cha rges 
defendant not oa trustee but as a banking corporation. In parngraph 
four complainant charges “that all of the sets of the defendant in 
this regard were done with the full kmewledge and assent of ite 
officers and directors, and were done by the said defendant, not in 
any capacity as trustee er otherwise but as an tLlinois banking cer- 
poration.” im the prayer for relief im the amended and eupplemental 
bill of complaint complainant prays “that the defendant Paillip “tate 
Bank and Trust Gos may be deereed to pay to the complainant the 

sum Of 99,9675, which said sum was paid by the complainant to the 
Gefendant pursucnt te the as id contract * * *," The deeree finds 
that “the court further finde from the evicence that the defendant, 
Philliy tate Sank and Trust Coe, was at sil times herein a banking 
corporation organized uncer the laws ef the “tate of Tllinois, and 
was at all times subject te the restrictions placed by statute on 
banking corporations, one of which was thet the defendant, as a bank, 
was expressly prohibited from dealing in or with real estate for ite 
own profit.’ it is plain that the bili stated e cause ef action 
againet defendant in its capacity as a banking corporations, and the 
words “as trustee” are but @eseriptio personage (See dustin ve 
Parkers, 317 tlle 348, 354.) If the contract wos ultra yires and 
void ab initig complainant might have sued defendant im a uit at 


law (Tietke ve Union Bank ef Chicago, 259 Ills Appe S42), and if in 
her pleadings she added the words “as trustee" to the corporate 


name of éefendant, the liability of defendant in ite corporate 
capacity would have been im ne way changed, (See Yad ve Sohmidt, 


307 TlLe 331, 341) 
























oul J— 


te sueqqve a? yrivedémn an nedie deaabice tel — as haw bes 
aiood odd ai Saved 26 moo ease ou dadd e¢sonns bee mokdmetuae aft 

es bsdaome wld nt senté Leseven dadt gout wh 40 © ett weqa wzend gods 
oute at oh ford q20baured as saodao%sd 09 oxsBet daantagawns ithe 

asysaiis ose Lite be Demat st wh aigasgeneg ‘endo a mt aaaa oun · 
shepe' ears al — yaibined & a: St weiawad ae 80m: ra daoa 

Cree eon Mr 

abe te. dren ae os, baw sabednend fiat uid Mate enwb saw eatin 

on Jon pinadooren bien sdb ys one) exeN bie saseowents nal eset 

— pittsinad shosi6£3 mu on end ontwsedde so waded ve. vetuagee ’ 

Losnome tae tse ee Le 

| —** — ——— oue teut · artery. 4 




















———— xd * — ee, * Aas « — 4 

Abad gemned. sit "oe ° %. somminty At sat, EN ENTND 
“tnt 9 dott commstve a arch mth een t90 te ie 
ans 8 at exvu oeit⸗ he ts pore pe duct hile snot — i 
ae — 2 ated std * —— al * — i = i 











oat. bitte metas — * so ‘utocare tn * —R 
T sie abies 469 saxdimnn is uw Be gee | 
48 Klum at Puadantod Dave ome at 4 — 
at ne baa * aH eEit ees 


— 


Je 


Defendant contends: ‘Where real estate is purchased 
at am auction sale, the terme of which are agreed upon, and the 
purchaser paya money on such purchase to a bank ac agent of the 
vendor, ani afterwards the purchaser enters into a contract with 
the bank as trustee for the vendor for the purehase of the same 
property and under these same terms, and makes payments to the 
bank as such trustes, the latter payments will be regarded in 
equity as having been paid under the contract made ot the auetion 
sale if the contrect with the bank as trustee is ultra vires as te 
the banx and, in consequenee, invalids" and “when money is paid 
om an oral contract for the purchase of real estate, recovery will 
not be allowed for auch money (a) where the party to whem such pay- 
ment is mice receives mo benefit therefrom ond hae not refused pere 
formance under the contreek, or (b) where the purchase wos made at 
an auetion sale and a meworandum of the terms of purchase was made 
and signed by the clerk of the auctioneer at the sales" “e find 
it somewhat difficult to follow the ergument ef defendant in support 
of the inetant contentionee lt argues, apparently, that the receipt 
for $600 which was issued by "The Nick M. Millis Company (Net ine.) 
By Nick % Ellis (Seal)," “covered all the terms to make a definite 
contract with the exception of the description of the real estate — 
which, of course, could not be determined until the auction sale and 
the complainant had bid fer a particular let and such bid had 
been accepted by the auctioncerg” that the receipt, either 
alone, or considered in eonnection with the fact that complainant 
bid it at auction “and thie lot was knoeked down to her," and that 
ehe then paid $5,400 to defendant, constituted the contract, and 
that if the contract that was thereafter entered inte with the bank 
as trustee was void, the prior contract would atill be valid, and 
that the moneys paid to the bank as trustee must be regarded as 
belonging te the vender, and that if the vender should sue te 


houston at v¢adue Laot euedW" tabredmoo dmiietet 

tid beim ynaqe Reetps exe Moise to amsed ont 9 @Lan sottons ets 
eat Yo frags on ied a 09 sented sou mo Yonom ByAT xonndoeiy 
“aw foartuen & otmt exeeue teeedomug ofa shenexests bas @ TORRY 
one od te onsdoug of? xe sohnoy ef x9t ogdeatd ao aod ond 
¥ et od edronysg aden bas eames ous sands ebm: bas Yenegomg 
aa babtages ad Lihy ——— toasak ond seogeunt, fave, ae, * 
molfous old sn oban Soantnes edt ‘sobou bbeg owed eainad — — 
ad as getty exthy ah sstausd Be strut oaks ae hw boetines ee 3 ef 
 fabeay ad vonda aatix⸗ bas “gbtLavnd eomeupounoy at bmn tia 9, 
iitw qesveses peiodee fines te oreo ae ona 28) deaxdmno fe70 a9 Bp 
wg Moun morte od ‘eiteg ons orem (a) yonee soure zo? bewelle od % 
19g bnaute? Som oa ie ——— mised ont ora, or) ws a. 































| ge oF ‘alsa oi ds resmod tous | wie ea — ie a oatt i ton 
| ‘Proaque et daabaeteb te devour aut worsen * | —* > 
. — oe saul acttaoracge enopse a 





eines a tes od amced odd . kta sexoren" —— — 

"status Loos sl zo mohtqi toned ocd eq — by 
“huss ofan notgous ond Stdcw bonbusaden Of Fou biwae «euxueN I, 
) bast bid dows one tok tokual tong s 20% * best én oad ? 2 ele 
| Welltto gagtoon ond faslt “paemel sows auld YE deduenoS mend. 
Sanit alge dnc} dost odd dieiw mebdoonnes mh boxoblon — 3 , a ‘ ‘ 
fact? bao “ered 99 moved Rotoont gow dol wtste bne* ka cue. an oh bbe 
——— ead —2* sulted — os - 

bas. — of Liha — ——— cobmy site 

a8 dotaunex os Pas ymn ts ta ots 0 —* 





“ie 


recover this money from the bank he would prevail in such proceed ing 
and therefore complainant should not be allewed to prevail in the 
instant suit, and that complainant bought the lot “from someone else 
at this auction sale” and the payments made by complainant will be 
regarded ac having been made under the original eontract. The 
regeipt given by the Nick M. Sliie Company was not intended «s a 
contract. It wae merely a receipt for moneys paid, and the unmen- 
tioned yendor was not bound thereby, az clearly appeare from ite 
paraseologyi 

"The Niok Me Bliie Coe 

“Subd ividers 


“(not inee) 
*“Chicag@s tllimeia Pebe 23_5 10064 


“Reeciver of Anna Curtia, Address 1627 Yallien 
Patrick 


Avenue Six Hundred and 10/100 Dellers which wili entitle eovsse 

te bid at the auction sale of lots in the Rebey-Bdgewnter Golf 
Club Addition to Rogers Park im Cook County, 'liinois, pursuant 

te the conduct and terms of saic auction. said right te bid 
hereby conferred shall terminate if and when he becomes a 
eucceasful bidder and purchaser of ome let at eaié sale. Yithin 
ten daya after the acceptanee of sald bid by the Vendor, safd 
successful bidder shall pay to the Vender in cagh one-third ef the 
entire amount of enid suecessful bid, (said $606.00 to be then 


| ied om account of said one-third poyment), amd exeout: 
ubstance to Vendor, specifying the terms anc conditions oe 
¢ complies with to en bitle thy ar oi eo & War Pony BeOS ¢ J 


Shoule the Purchaser fai: 7) —* — * payment here iz 
ed for, within ould tem days, then onid eum of $600.00 shali 
@ liquidated Gamages. The right 
meidered 


be oo a personas ¢ rty omy 
@ no inte: eatin any os un 
& Ae Li wee. 


contract shall be executed and delivered. 
The receipt for the $5,400 given by defendant te complainant, reads 


as follows 

















"5/19 19238 
"Received of Anna Curtis, Fifty Your ed # Dollars 
($5400.00) being balanee of one third down payment on purchase 
Price of Lot Noocsseees im Robey-Edgewater Golf Club Addition, 
said gum to be held in eserow by the undersigned until the plat 
for said sddition has been recorded and a contract executed by 
eaid Anne Curtis for the purchase of said property in accordance 
with the terme of sale already made. 
i State Bank & Trust Company 


Ne We 


If the two receipts be considered together it is plain that it wes 


gt beoue Ty Mone eh Lleverg aisiow ef dand ed? moxt Yonem alld xsvesos 
od? ai Lleveim of beweila ed dom Mwoda dnemhalqaos wx tered? baw 
oole otenman ameeR” FOL ot deigued Inanhaiguoo fast dus ative snags 
od iii semntalqauce yd vhew etoesyeq ons tae “skew smisoun shite 
ef? .Sowkdmen Kevlgixe wit woh cham ased gnived go bebteget 
8 to babmesnt Fon enw Yunptod LIL LM dest ons yl monty. dqtenes 
“moma ac? bite gbing syvaom xok tqhecon o eLomom eaw th). «teeténas 
adi mnxt oxeeqge viveeRs te yydetedd snved tem aor noboey bemede 
so? ehice ee CAT runes At pane Kemeny 





—— — — —— 


— 


ae 


| ene Cae Set Me tp 
abSO 988 tue boat it — sia i 


mei set raed meernin —D — te ) suv oor ——— 


a iiss ae ett itty pores a 





; * ge : 
“kate 8 088 rte ae 6 bias most won — Ss. | Maa * 
fae 2 it — ——— — 2 wy ae 

re , et * Sy ree ey 









pent ai aba dtd % “Ye 
talgq ode LE Sea ee ae eet 


ub 8* Ya 3 


elle 


mot the intention to bind the unimowm vendor until a formal cone 
tract “aatisfactory in form and substance toe Vendor” was executed. 
It will be noticed that the receipt for the $5,400 wes signed by 
defendent in ite capacity as a banks lefendant executed and delivered 
to complainant the contract of April 12, 1928. Complainant, in her 
bill» alleges that she paid to defendant the oum of $9,675 under 
and by virtue of the slleged contract, and d:fendent in its anewer 
aédmite the truth of these allegations. Om the back of the alleged 
contract defendant made the following indornenente *"Heeecived on the 
within Contract the following sume: $600 Prinelpal," thereby 
acknowledging that it had reecived the 0600 paid by complainant 
to Sick Ms Silis Company. It, im the same manner, acknowledged 
the receipt of the 05,400. The property in question wes conveyed 
te defendant as trustee about six months after the exceution of the 
alleged ¢ontract. No evidence was introduced by cvofencan? cone 
cerning its actions az such trustee, nor regarding the diapodition 
of the moneys it received. the preeent alarm of defendant aa te 
the possible consequenees to it if we sustain the instant decree 
does not, under the recoré in this ease, appeal te use (See Tietke 
Ye Union Sank of Chicage, supra, 345.) The instant contentions 
of defendant are also afterthoughts. ‘It mkes no such éefenses 
im ite anewer to the amended bill, but, on the contrary, defends 
the contract ami offers to fulfill all of its obligations thereunder 
and insiste that the contract should be enforeed, and that “the sole 
reason for the section by the complainant in thie cave is the severe 
and general dechine im the real estate warket which has taken place 
during the past two years.* 

Defendant has argued a number of contentions that 
relate to the question as te whether or not the alleged contract 
was ultra vires and void. It first takes the somewhat surprising 


position that “complainant failed to eustain the burden of proof 


— cer “wokweT of otmmcadua dae ai0l a grotecRutiaa” somee 


gt Semple wew 09%,52 add ued sqteoes ond Gadd bentson ed Lhiw a 
hoxovsiob bas botugexe Sauhastet stead s as ytleagap afk m2. —— 
(est at aent aAlgaach GRRL gk LimyA Re aoerane md ote -. 

qohnw 879.9% te me sit Paghaotad OF Bheg one tadt empntieng ihe 
<owans ef) a2 duatmet d bas edontdmse Segelle at Ye sadtiv gd Baa 
wit mo boviveet" —E gert wrat Caa of% eham ditedne tes Somtemon 
yitoteds “etaqhoates 0005 desas ‘gubweliet oft toensned mtieie 

: nanatatame wh beg 0009 att povtoney bait @2 Gadd gubybetwonton 

ee begholwenioa .zonmas omme ald ah git sing ALE MON He 
beyovace nek Soldaewp mt qoieqeng od? oeh. ve pela. ie sqhve oe a 

sas Ye nobivowxe sit Y8ika putt xe Lal taut? ne daabne 












“98 i, — ‘te winds —— oat — — 
—* oat) — of kasena an: ab drone — — bat 
edd tnedenin Subtiend ott on oe * t 
“biemetE oxy pat podam $T — erdugaeddiaths oe fp exe dma’ 
aibxekoD sexeeines of? nem yand yttte eM TT | er 
uohgueted? amoléopitvo ett te ifa £22 het 99 ewe Yko! Bew Boe 
olen vit” fast? dtm ghaorvetes of Aiuode teoxtnae ext tastt oGelkein bei 
ereves eft a2 geno atete wt a ode ae i eam 
eoaly maxed — sontaom ooe⸗e· Boor ais: een 
| —E . ve ' * md 
— —— — — —— om 
drantnee Soyelia exe som 0 sites 0 190 motseoup ws as | oe taker 
aatel aura tasivemos ots ariad ‘Gaet) #1 show dan, 


‘ony re wobiiie vey atasuie OP beLta? suantalgnec" dade mokshneg— 

















aliio 


that rested upom her te show that there had been no conveyance 

to the bank in trust of this property at the time this contract 

was executed,” and defendant argues that even though the trust 

deed by which the bank acquired title te the property in question 
bears a date subsequent to the contract of purchase we should infer 
that the bank had title at the time of the execution of the alleged 
contract, or that, in any event, the burden was upen complainant 

to show that the benk hed mot title, and thet she failed im that 
regard. The mater found “that thie instrument (referring to the 
trust deed) was executed about six months after the execution on 

Way 269 1923, of the agreement for sale by the Phillips State Bank 

& Trust Company of Chicago, ac of October 2%) 1928 was put in evidence 
anc no testimony ae te any prier trust deed was givenz" also “that | 
the fact is thst defendant was not appointed trustee by any document 
in evidence here except the trust desd cf October 29, 1923, or over 
five months after it asserted itself te be a trustee in the agreement 
te seil to Amma Curtise* No objection was made by defendant te any 
of the findings of fact mace by the master, andy /we have ax heretoe 
fore stated, defendant coneedes that ail of the findings of fact 

in the master's report are in aceordsmee with the evidence. Defende 
aut, after the mester’s report, wade no effort te have the hearing 
reopened in order that it might supplement its proof, although the 
master stated im his repert that he wee finding that compleinant 

had gusteined the material allegations of her bill and amended bill 
ou the sole ground thet the agreement te sell mace by cefendant wae 
avd ig mull and void beonuse the truat deed to cefendant wou executed 
wore than six months after the date of the auction sale and more than 
five months after the date of execution of the agreement to selis 
Yurthermore, the master stated that the two contentions made vefore 
him by éefendant were (a) “that although as a bank it would have 

no corporate power te make an agreement to convey real preperty which 


wonsyovnes em aved bad onedt dast wolle 62 xed Mage bedeet tats 
 twaxdaon eile onds add Suiytueqory uidt Lo tewrd wh dina md od 
| Geared sold siywostd move Gass gowgre ttabmolos tm "ydetueeKe saw 
holiaauy wl yucqetg aeſe o¢ ofshd dorivpoe asd ent a tiw ye bee 
‘goat binds ev eastionig Ye toetimos od? of dmeupandyy edad « wened 
bogelig sid Ie Mektuocxs vst Ye amis afd de OLEtt had smmdiwelg fasts 
Aaonialuags hogs sav sebiud sd? stave Ya at qtale to yrocnMee 
Gai? ah balial ema foil haa g2S04 fom hed Aasd est? dente weedeied 
 gel¢ of guivxelet) desmwréaai eid? Gea" bavet sedan edt a Seago 
me maktwooxs afd ustte wdécom ata twede Dedworxe uaw (boob teed 
Heel aad aghiLint eft YS ofan Tot smarsenge ects Yo qSSHL QDR ysl 
“SOrtoni Ve ME AiG wa AES gS rodoto0 Tone yogacdd Yo vangaed darts 
Sade" Onis “gaovky gow boob toarcd webs yaa .0F an onlseod om tm 
womens Yon Yd ertaurd hoturoaua tam saw dmabuehed taslg.addomd aft 
TO¥G 12 48S2L 422 xxdeded Yo Boed danut ode dqvexe oxed eemebiwe mt : 
troaoenpe ott? at sotaad a o6 ad Masth bedrseen ¢hotadte atime evel 
uo OF Inadneted YS ehnm naw waieckde of “vabsuO smh ad Shwe ad 
<oso7ed HE oval ov\eiae «uBdnes oft YW alam duck Ye agabbn!?, sald 2 
feet Lo egmtontt eds Lo Lie dad? egboomva tindasted ghgtada omer 
amizaed adt syed ao ———— — 
ods Agwediia Qloety a8! smemelqyen dttyie 2h Jodd t9bxo mb domemeos 
ER AO ED A 


SF pe rer Sea ee —— 





y 
+ 
i 





aa 
‘i 








“lie 


it did not presently lawfully own, but which it expeoted to acquire 
im time to fulfill euch agreement, neverthelesa defendant had aueh 
power as a trust company, arm! tha: it bad power to convey at a 
future cate, oe trustee, property ae to which it expected to be 
made a trustee before the future date for conveyance would arrive; 
and that in this case it actuclhy wae created a trustee before the 
éate on which under the sgreement it would be culled upon to make 
the actual conveyance to complainants" and (b) “that compleinant, 
by making payments of principal and interest six months after the 
deed of trust wos axeeuted, ratified the transaction and eured the 
original lack of corporate power in the banks” It is evident thet 
the inatant centention of defendant is an afterthought and without 
merit. 

The muster held, under the authority of Zietke v. ‘nion 
Benk of Chicago, stipyae that defendant had no power or authority 
te make the agreement te 2¢1i1 anc that such agreement wae vold, 
and not merely voidablc, as exeeeding the corporate powers of a 
bank, and that being veld it waz & nullity which could not be cured 
by the subsequent execution of the deed of trust nor by any alleged 
aet of ratifiention of complainant. The ehoaneeller sustained the 
maater in thet regard. Im the Tietke ense (certiorari denied 
by the Supreme court) we said (pps Md4~5)s 

fa “That the contract vas void ah initie for want ef pover 
cites ae ten rece ts ts the godine 0 Today thas 0 
which it may obtain title im the collection of its debts, is not 
secss te custnin Ate auiberity 80 eancate the comtzccts in 
question oa the thet it ia qualified to do business as a 
trust company. To be sure, under the trust statute (Cahill's 


Ste che 32, paragraph 345) it may ag & corporation execute 
trusts and be appointed trustee by deeds But there is nothing 
im the ati ted facts which confer upon defendant any such 
trust relation as contemplated by said Act. The only power con- 
ferred upon it in the truat agreement te which it was a party is 


that of eollect and distribus money. It held no trust 
— * to root the title * real estate. It wae given no 


title to the lots involved or power as trusted, agent or other- 
wise, to sell them or contract ‘or their sale, hence its cone 





eulsped 62 bedvegxe 33 do udw ee ero i deriwad vidnssorg ‘ten “bib 4 
Hiei Dut Iasbawtes neokedsaeven Sooners owe’ ‘Pebatur of ombd at 
2a yovnes OF cowed bail 32° Jad ‘sai vemagans Fauld a ab Zong 
‘get BE Bedsegay 91 Molde os as wreqong seedensd * oda eurds 
jovizxh hivew some yernes tod oda ouwdu odd ‘aubied eodaute * 
sith Stated sévdied's Deabnde cna Ubteudea ‘tf eens ale’ at dai’ bo 
edn oF ogy NefLeg eg biwow ot Stemtetye “eat ‘Shou vis no dab 
ydemectateavod dastd” (4) Bead“; tnautdtgeoe éF sons yoraes ‘Eaubea * 

| td vaan eldsom ate denrodmt has —— * Penge renrgeq * 











@ Ww otwwoq stameqren: on? pirkbesbdas an — — 
heuve od ton binoy olde whiten # ase # Shey gitee salt bm etinsd 
hogeiiea yoo wh com dues ko boob ott YO ebtiusee inempendive bs" 
ne bontadune velteouwuly ox. tmemt atiea’ we atdus State bod! 
| DOkmob Lime teeoe) wbme eaeOrT atte et haoget eo ab eeeeke 

6 0) sf Gane ge) Bted de (een08 veroigue bald ya 
Re! area £6. stor exe sat tae tata 

a's cee — ai Las Fe Free too a 
















ee a a 


f 
; 
H 
] 
4 
\ 
i 





alte 


tract was ultre vireg ae outside the seope of any power it 
——— and unentor¢ceable by either party te the contract. 

eantil Mereantile Trust. 273 Thle 332, 342.4) While 
eres such a case naither party —* sue on the contract, the money — 
paid by a party thereon cay be recovered back as money had and 
reeeived to his use. that being wo, it inevitably follows that 
plaintiff's right to the recevery of the money he haz paid defente 
ant cannot be cefented, as argued by appellee, on the ground that 
he — é6efault in payments recuired to be wade under the void 
cont . 

“Appellee argues that defendant bank acquired — 
from Croigsunt to act es his agent because his employee brought 
the coutrects to defendant %fer signature,' as wus et ipulates tes 
amd thet 18 signed them us Sagent.' Sut even if Greissant zo 
intended, it is clear that the attempt of the bank te act as auch 
= + one such a truet relntion as contemplated by the 

BS ACte 


We think the fietke case applies to the facts ef the instant one and 
that the master and the chanecllor were justified in fellowing ite 
Defendant argues that complainant is estepped from claiming that the 
alleged contrect is ultra yireg beenuce she recognized and operated 
under the contract by standing by and permitting certain improve- 
ments to be installed in and about the Jot in question, and by making 
further payments thereunder. Ye have carefully considered the 
authorities cited by defendant in suppert ef this argument but we doe 
not believe that they are applicable to the instant ence. The 
principle that applies to the instant contention is sateated im Central 
Transportation Coe vs Pulimen's Paleoe Gor Coes 159 Us “eo 24, wherein 
it wae argued that even if the contract sued on was void because 
ultre vires and against public pelicys, yet thet, heving been fully 
performed on the part of the gleintiff, and the benefite of it 
received by the ¢efendant for the period covered by the declaration, 
the defendant wae estopped to set up the invalidity of the contract 
ag a defense to the action to resever the sompenssiion agreed on 
fer thet period. As to this contention the court said: 

"The view which thie court hag taken ef the question 
— Ag Maen: Sis kaon prinesplesy te ye Feltoent 
in the simies' Gidake tak bk Gane othakts te the : ne 


eréation as defined in the law of its erganization, and therefore 
beyond the powers conferred upon it by the legislatures, is not 


4 
ae Fag we 2 te eqeon as —B ss goxty somes 


* nov week okt BTS 4 EY 4 Stas 


Beene gerd sdaccttene wal? me ane, Bees — 
bee Rav Yorws 2a Bow sousveset ed Yon ead 
dole 2 t vufdedivent @) you gated gad? «me ie 
—— —* gad ver ed? te Yueveces od ‘be Seid 
a my gtationge Yd bawgie oa pa SAN 

bLov cal ashes oben od ad —J———— ad a ad 


Ysiroiae botlspos tinod duadee'to’ tasks sou = re” 













aig Pesan’ dine ze 
eos — dadegt —* end ae ' omdergia te 


ing sa doa fon of ? tind 8 i i cae —* ea 
_ at, ah na aenetme: a8 Molinler somts ‘ sloaie cathe : 
Dera ome —— Od? Io aden? edt 02 —————— aia Paks stoi : 
ed) gakwofkek mt oltidaut owew Yetrsodady eae one cediiom onlt ’ wd 
aiid ded gattatats movi beqyeses vt snaKhalgnd Baile rome rn od 
vetaceqs ites ‘boulayooet ois eanaood nethy otdty al fostdomy Boge. 
~svougul at asuss grbviione tas ys gubbande yd toenesoo add robe 
— emolteou at Fok wale sods ban a _beLLntant 96 of etn 















kexins3 ak Rotate * aolea doo⸗ en⸗ taai eas os eobtaga tate 5* 
——— tell oe Bhd ees 202 29 uta sab ov. 282 af * ze ae 


$t.2e etttousd sid bee evtemage — ime ott y bemtehree 


nah titasoes ont? ve borevey en's atte sot strabeco teh ee od Mie 


— — 


Se ae ee 


a 


— ee 


Sa 


X 


1 


— ers 


“lie 


yotcable only, but wholly veid, and of no —* effect, The 
ebjection to the contract is» not merely thet the Bak rips! — — 
t mot to have mace it, But that it could not muke ite The 
contract cammot be ratified by cither party, because 1t could 
not have bean suthorisced by eithere Neo performance on either 
side can give the unlawful 22 any vvaliaity, or be the 
foundation of any right of action Abe 
“hen a corporation is acting —* the general 
seope of the powers conferred upom it fame hee we the 
ing w "be 


eer poration, as well * ——— eontrac 
te deny that it has complice with the path formalities 
which sre Byars to its existence or to its action - 
euch requisites —_ in fact have been complied withe 
when the contract is b the powers conferred upon it 
ty “extot ing laws, neither t pyre Views nor ps other party 
to the contract, can be esto by aasent @ its or 


acting upon it,» te show ree gg ti Was pylon epety: * those lawa.* 
This language is quoted with approval in National 5 : 
Xs Home Savings Banks, 181 Ills 55, 45- (See also — Reason. Site 
ve Klgesens 285 Tie S7p Stacy ve Glen “Livn Hote, Cos, 225 Uhl. 
546, 552+) | 

Defendant contends that "any feilure on the pert of the 
bank to obtain title aa trustee to thie let befere the bank sncqubed 





the contract in question as trustee was ot moet only an irregularity 
which dic not mnke the contract void and which wae cuseble by @ 
subsequent conveyance ef title to the bark in truste” It io true, 
under the trust statute (Cehill's %t. (1931) chs S29 pars 345) 
defendant MAyYs ao & Corporation, execute tructs wnt be appointed 
trasbee Yr. tote but if the eriginsl ¢gutract waa whelly void and 
not werely yoldable the subsequent conveyanee of title te the bank 
in trust did not wake the agreement valide 
Defendant next contends that the chamecsier erred in 

penaitt ing complainant to recover the $600 which waa paid to Hiek 
Me BALie Company (Mot Tne -) before the muction sale, as “there 

ie no evidenee to show thet any pertion of this money ever came 
“Ste the hande of the bank." Tt tp 2 oufftetent answer te this 
eaten we restate vmot 70 have: alresdy said, that the bank 
i, on the back of the contract it made with complainant, 
‘the recess ‘of ‘the #600. 








PO ae eee 








7 aye z 
— vas Tes ————— te 
aan —*—* —— ie 
A w ——— * A tems wosle OF 98k nope saben 
et Levergge atte ——— ae 
+O gGh affl ££ . 





* 








———— no reeliot cam" deste. statue, seebaeted, ae 
bediaoxe deat alt exerted dol old? of osdnund as oAaara —*—* om ot 
veixa tmvrri us Yen éoear te a —D aa —XRX sh droxdnoy as 

2 ‘ei eldata sume sto deter — boy Soexdneo anid. a 00m: ae dota 7 3 
seus GE GL “edawae at aad ory ot A⸗t⸗ 39 oom — — J . ; — 
AGE etag 48S ade (£E0L) ofS ah Chded) odubete, taut eds. sete 
boduteggs 95 vas atowrd stusoxe «wodaxagnee 6.98 ¢ysK. : 

bee dtey vLindw sev doesaroe Lemtphae ede th aud sbosb —2 

ined a6¢ 09 eLyid Ye eonuyeveug tmpupeedie val, ‘sfdedtov,. Conon fom 

sbiLay trommonge ex¢ salom fon otd feud ab 
Si bette woiioenmady ott dart? ehoetaso tron tmebae ted, ween — —— 
(Mesh os blag saw dots COR} ci? tovevet OF. tment alquus —— — 

weeds” se ashen aohtoug, ot yroted («gat torn), hanasu p — 
Smal Seve vanen akue oe MAF ROR YH: fase men er — fins ⸗ 
alas of towns vaolok Miwa aa ee 
shied ie ded —— AF 
———— — * * 


* 9 * 5* — $e * Wes Ps ok k 






















-1l6- 


Defendant next contends that the chancellor erred in 
sllowing complainant “to ‘recover the initial payment of 95,400 
which she paid to the bank as agent for the vender and before 
the contract in question here wae ever entered into." It ig a 
sufficient answer to this contention te soy thet the bank also 
acknowledged the receipt of this $5,400 on the back of the 
contract. 

Defendant again argues that “so far aw the proof goes, 
the bank may have long since paid over te the beneficiaries under 
this trust every cont that complainant paid it as trustee. it 
follews that complainant is mot entitled to a recovery in any 
amount even if the contract were void." Mo such defense woe raised 
nor suggested by the pleadings nor during the trial of the cause, 
ner wes any such point made by way of objection to the master's 
findings and conclusions. By its enawer defendant asserted that 
it was ready and willing to perform ite part of the contract. 
Moreover, while complainant could net Baye sued upon the contrect, 
she would have had the right to recover back the money she paid in 
an aetion at law, as money had and reeeived te her usee (Tictke vy. 
Union Bank of Chicago, supra, 344+) 

Defendant finally contends that complainant should not 
have been allowed te recover interest under the statute (pure 2, che 
%4, Cahill's Reve St- of Ille, 1931) because defendant hoe not bem 
guilty of umreasonmable and vexatious delay im retaining the money 
that complainant paid to ite The allowance of interest in this case 
wae not predicated upon that statute. 

"Neither the bill nor the crogs-bill makes any claim 
for interest, and the case is not one of those in which the statute 
grevstee that interest shall be sllewed. In equity, gga 


terest is allowed beenuse of equitable consid lens, 


circumstances of the case 
given or withheld os under the 168 Illes G0) The 


ate A ce ye Rg — —— reece which belonged to the 
trust and savings bank, if it retainec them without authority of 


vebaoh tw dnorurg Katte wy xoveteR * — patwoiio 
| erated J —8 eke x08 oom oe ine ate ot stor ds Coste 
e ak a1 ‘etek Soxvinte Yewe wow oxedt mazsuoup at 4 | 
— — duds Qo ee aatineenoo abst ome mt 

geld 6 toed cole me Ronee ats 1 ‘to Dassen’ * byabodwonaton 











resem heen ali « aa, — a — eee — 
— bkeq somte ‘tnd ova é wa aoit “ed 
— — soetauad na tf hog suas La00 doald ‘insoo * crore a ad alt 4 
“wis ah qruvooee ⸗ od petenine dom od Indic atemoo dente awotker 
beaten now sansheh Mowe of “ahley exew toaudees adi ‘os “eo tie | 
qeauae etfs 19 Leltd oad yaks ron ogathonty vat Wi bodaoayed som 
i a vedas emt OF aakiovtdo 20 Wor WW oben tmbog sue yas saw von 
2 “tests bedxoana $15. ae te 9 gewune att ae canotantones * —D 
— sfoortuae oxtd 20 tuag aff mxoteeg od satittw Aims ana aow #8 
stowmaaos vali mags beie ond ton divee Saontadgnos BEtdw ¢xOvarTe 
* aon sts stow ott Aon eovooex odd Bod eval Bivow sin 
X2atost) o®may tork ot novieoes * — wom ae — te moh aoa | as 
‘tox bkwosto snaikasquoo tostd alorsdsa At⸗ari — ——— 








Cy « a 


otto eS ateq) wtudade oat ne beats geoxoans revooe, oe — wood 


med Sox soit tambo tes eausved (cows oobi ‘Me 080 evok ‘eft ee 
waon ont auiigiases af qaisb ewok taney bes ‘efdsuox as auu be Vite a 
Gano alsts st fesxesat to toaswotts eat tt ot oka drontatqune teutd 
sedubede tosis nog baden tbeng som sew 

 telo veto evslon Litdwemero ad sen Ethd A⸗ 
etuteda wid Andee mt onortd pr alg hoy — 


- _ a revewod Lupe wl obs 





Se ee ot ee eee 







— pee ape : —— oe com 


“le 


law, should account for interest from the time a demand was made 
for payment, which was when the cross-bill was filed. 


a asta R27 Illes ee sag oan severe 278 ny ee. 
If we are correct im our holding that the contract was ultra yires 
and void then it would seem to be equitable and just that complsinant 
should be allowed interest, av the bank has hed the use ef a con- 
siderable sum of woney for a long period of times 

After a careful and patient consideration of the many 
contentions raised by defendont, we have reached the conclusion 
that the deeree of the Cireuwit eourt of Cook county should be 


affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered. 
AFF IRWUDe 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJe», coneu¥e 





% Ke Bet — od bh a a 2 
* "st 86 Sos amok «oem Ro motte 



























Aah 


* WAR aoa aya 








36158 fo ep 


MBABERT C, HELLER & COes Ine., 
a Corporation, 


APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT 


Appeliant, 





ve, 


BDOWDLE BROTHERS OO., 
a Corporation, 


OF COOK COUNTY. 


— — 


Appelles. 


270 1.A. 6227 


BR, JUSTICR GRIDLEY DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT, 


In an action in asewepsit, commenced July 12, 1930, rer 
dasages for the elaimed breagh by defendant of « contract, there 
Was a trial im the cireult court without a jury in May, 1932, re- 
gulting in the court finding the issues in defendant's fever and 
entering a judgment for costs against plaintiff, By this appeal 
plaintiff seeks to reverse the judgment and te have this court 
enter ® judement here against defendant fer $91,770. 

Plaintiff's declaration consisted of « special count and 
the common counts. in the seeeial eount plaintiff alleged that 
on April 28, 1950, it was engaged in the business of buying and 
S@iling bonds and other investment securities, and defendant was 
engaged in the general contracting business, including the con- ie 
struction of public improvementa; that prior to said date sant’ 
tiff wae advised that defendant had submitted a bid for, or was 
interested in, a contraet for the construction of a aystem of sewers 
in the Village of Wilmette, Lllincis, and that if the sontraet was 
awarded to it defendant would have appreximately $1,300,000 Village 
of Wilmette Zix Per Cent Sewer Bonds te dispose of, and defendant 
requested plaintiff to submit a bid therefor; that accordingly on 
maid date, plaintiff at New York submitted by telegram a bid to 
defendant at Chicago for the purchase of the bonds, ae follows 
(italics ours): 


"Se bid you for approximately $1,300,000 Village Wilmette 
eix per cent. sewer bonds, maturing from one to twenty years, 









“gales rivént moet, ere | 
as Rae a 


“$ga.Al ors oe ae 


i ae * he Hratao or “omviaia musta — soxzaw . 


wet ObOL 8h yi beanouses \Fieiiwnaw a2 elfen ae WE” 
axed tewnties 2 to duababtobh ya Abeoee hambeth otf” «ot kos pas us b 
oot ,280£ ,yak af went a uedtiw gerne + tiette oat ae telat baw 
fine tovel s'sanbee teh wh essmel add yaibalt dcwes add ab galt ion 
teoqqs eld? xX .Tikdale Le tealage wdace co toomabut, a antxv c· 
— andi ovad of bus Saeaghal eae aerevet ab fialewa mantel 4 
O00, £08 xot theine ted fonkege owed anata, 2 tan 
hae taueo Lelooye a te befalaues nottersiees atriitatett 

fait tegoita Tritatele taven Lalooqe aaé al .agawes —& ‘at 
baw zau vav to saeaiaud eas mb boguqtn daw $2 ,08OE 88. saga * 
on FambAc'ted dan weitinusss sommreeval twit han ebaod wath i 
F me wee oft yothusoat -eevaltecd yaltoarsaop Lexeney ot at begagne f 
*.4 etab bine of zotie fact jetnsmevexqed ebiddy to molioutda — 

kaw tM ToT bid & betsindoe bad ‘Stabow ted fact boultvhs eo8 enue 
‘ii to mageys a te meigourtanas edt to's toaxgnos a gah be 1 ' 
bax fowrtnon odd Th tacit bas okomssT ,wddouttY Yo onetti¥ oat at 
apelLl¥ 000,008, £8 YLesentzetags owed Rikow tanhaotob $2 of ‘ baw , 
Shabue'tod ban Ao ovoqath of aback towel fond x0% x ke nv· tun * 
ag ylynthtooge. seid protested? bid w eenun of Tihtatate boteowpor ! 
of bid # omxgotot yd Hetdindwe axoY wok ga Thitatelq ,otab * i 
awollot as ,ohsied ot ‘to seexoney edd tot opanisd ta 2 abana te ib ' 


ostomit® oye ll2¥ 000,008, £8 xieteatzeraca to% way bid wn. — 
ek 3 ‘snowt of ono most gaiiutem ,abaod ‘wee â— 






























ninety-three (95) cents (dollars) and acerued interest fer each 
one hundred dollars par value of bonds. This bid subjegt to 
legal opinion Chapman and Cutler, Chicago. You placing fund of 
five per cent. of par value of bonds aceepted by us with only 
preliminary legal opinion, to be returned to you when final is 
rendered, Also subjeet to the inspection and approval of the 
district by our Kr, foller; district te have a five per cent. 
reserve . Ronde deliverable sopreximately ever ten sonthe' 
period. This bid good only if you acknowledge acceptance of sane, 
advising that if vou sre succeseful bidder you will agree te these 
terms, This acceptance must be received no later than noon, 
Tuesday, April 2@th." 

And plaintiff further alleged that on April th, and 
prier te noon of that day, plaintiff reoeived frou defendant an 
acceptance by telegram of said bid, ae follows: ‘Your wire re 
Vilmette Bonds accepted. Will advise you tomorrow if we are 
suceeseful.* 

And plaintiff further alleged that om April 30th, it was 
mutually agreed between the parties that sald bonds were to be 
@elivered to plaintiff by defendant pursuant to the terme of the 


bid and scceptance, although the bid for said contract fer the eon- 
struction of said sewer system “had been submitted in the name of 


bo"; amd that the mutual agreenent 





(in this paragravh referred to) “was confirmed in writing by de- 
fendant ty letter," dated May lat and received by plaintiff on Kay 
2nd, as follews: 

"This will confirm cur conversation (over telenhene) of 
yesterday relative to the Wilmette Bonds. It ia our understanding 
that it is agreeable to accept these bende through us in secerdance 
with the commitment ef April 28th, notwithstanding the fact that 
the contract for execution of the work for the Village of Yilmette 
will be in the mame of Canneli-Conrad Construction Ceo. This con- 
tract is to be awarded in the Village Kay Gth, at 7:30 o'clioek 
De Be, daylight saving time.” 

And plaintiff further alleged that on May 6th, 1936, the 
contract fer the construction of the sewer syetem was awarded te 
the Cannell-Conrad Construction Co., and that immediately there- 
after, and late in the evening of May 6th, Delmar C. Gee, for dee 


fendant, telegrached to Herbert eller, president of plaintiff, at 


ew York, as follows: “Awarded contract tonight. Try and leave 












spa tot Saeregat bowtoom han jawediod) staes (E@) 
af bid iat .ebted te sulay seq ates ied’ 
%o how's oalg wat .egeetsd ,reLied, bike - | aoinige ft 
elne igie en yt hebdysooe ghiod to euley taq Te .taee tog ove 
ef fenkt accdw wey of bamuwden od of —53 faget 

edt te —— bins — 5 eats oe 
dion aes agen 76 
‘silfaes ted teve gy xetena elsgatoviies abaok ) 
use Wo somutgqesen egholvanios wey tL olde boog Bid a 
ae he pf poxge Lily wey sehhid Livftsaonoge ete sey T 
oo rege at? Yetad ot barigoes od geum ona aict . 
es foqh , 
tae  .ddQ8 Lhawd oo todd hege iia eeehew't Tpkte ty Baa © —* 
me aos das res mat pavieges vebembete re tant to soon ed wiles 


at onky wor⸗ — — 24 bk bie te mongole? « na 4 ge ’ 
ot * vorr one⸗ Hoy onlvbe nn shede 24 





te thoes seve) — mee — tht eat — 
guiicatatohsa as0 af gf wheel otdend. ie ond of ave —V 
eonsbhraene xt av sywotss abaad eeasds —2* os — —— ALE twat 
tans goat ect gabhbawreds teren ,di8S £biga “te ‘oiw 
edsomi it %e omalil¥ edt ao? xxow esd ke — 2 te toatises ed 
stioo whl — ade ya enelitY acd a} be an pees ou gate ab —— 
Peete: 20 OB: ga , uae by og a Fouts 
* ones gaivaw Server vain 











ond CORK 188 Yaak my Gace boyottn “Miendt Thusubede BAW?) >> 
‘ee — — — — 
outer? clodatbouml gail) bee , 0b nybtotrtuaed Bena 
ooh ‘tot 000.9 memmtom (xlde: spat Reyne: sath ye el , 
és ,VYiitukedq to taebleetq ,teLke tuedtel ot bedgaryeied | » 2s 


evens Bri et + fatyhawe — — tae oe — i 
Soy tp Gy olf} WS * ay 4 











Wednesday, arriving here Thureday morning, Wire," 

Ané@ plaintiff further alleged that immediately therenf ter 
Ploeintiff procecded to conduct an inspection of the district 
(wherein the sewer system war to be conptructed) by its agente ine 
cluding said Heller; that within approximately a week that inepece- 
tion was completed; that thereupon plaintiff notified defendant 
that “said districf was approved, and that plaintiff was ready to 
take said bonds, with the epinion of Chapman and Cutler as afore- 
seid"; that defendant, however, failed and refused te carry out 
and perform the terme of its agreement with plaintiff, and defend- 
ant contracted to ecli the bonds to other investment security 
denlers; and tnat “it has wold asid bends to said other deslers,* 
to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $156,000, eta. 

Accompanying plaintiff's declaration is the affidavit of 
ite president, Herbert ©. Heller, te the effect that plaintiff's 
@emand is for damages suffered by it “by reason of the failure and 
refusal of defendant to fulfill its contract with plaintitr, ae 
more fully set forth im plaintiff's declaration, -- said damages 
consisting of the difference between the purchase price for said 
bonds as provided by said contract, and the price at which plain- 
tiff could have sold said bends, leas the expensea incident there- 
to"; and that “said net profit" (speeaifying a particulnr sum) is 
due to 1t from defendant, after aliowing ell just credits, deduc- 
tions and set-offs. 

To plaintiff's declaration defendant filed a plea ef the 
general issue, and to the espeeial ecoumt a further ples, alleging 
that subsequent te Bay 1, 1956, and on or about Bay LOth, “*plaine 
tiff refused to accept said bonds in accordance with the terme of 


its telegram of April 28th, but demanded a ten per cent. reserve 
eushion, and refused to accept the bends upon the placing of a 
























«onee — MD — tort, yak — 


oak —2 ww (Seovarnbamen * et toast! —* ot J A 
— qonth dest enw & elagaatxorcea ambolt be —2 redial bine ’ | 
 paahee wh bed reden — aoqun ve ri — — 9— 
6o*⸗ ee Liddell has cama? 19 sotutge ot) atte | ae 8 * { 
io eres oF beeuitor — beste? ———— .saabs0%08 2 sats * Nig 
ae teh bree + Tr kbake Le Ag be tasers %me aes te eset ont, — ye 
eb baiees noms aevet seston od abaed ods thee of te. * 
inate ene moire nine ot sbsod bien bios aes ae ope @ figs 
ode «900 ity oat to mus ‘ont ad Baa ah atte 

to ‘tivat Pts —9 nokaara toh ———— sti ue 3 : 








* ——— Sento teers eas * — ——— J— — , 
baw ——— ons te noeney we et ww bovettus — 
an Maire — vero aoe eat ———— — * ‘ 





noyacad blee oe Mobtare food er Yesalaty at rot doe yit 
"Bias “wok eotre sander 989 nosmted senese Th eutt re | gaitelensg 
watate ‘delaw te soli ont bas —— Stas w ont s — ae abaod 


— ——— fant hte satan wre “Puan et 


‘eat Yo wate a bortt Sian bas toh noteatatens ——e—— all 
eahseife . asta Yetta « two Indoogs sth od Brie —— tat 
she lg" i004 yal suede te Ko ban OCeE ya ee tonepend 
ꝛe mares exit thw od catr oon⸗ ah shad Stew — - e 
ete er set te te wiv gap 
ae a Se eek RA wo i, OS a He 








fund of a five per cent, cussion”; and that defendant, upon platu- 
tiff so refusing to carry out the terme of the contract, sold the 
bends to persons sther than plaintirr, *“wileh defendant would not 
have done if plaintiff had not refused te complete said contract 
upon the placing ef a five per cent. cushion." Accompanying these 
pleas is defendant's affidavit of merits, by John J, Dowdle, ite 
seerectary, making substantially the same silegations as in asid 
further plea, and further alleging that by plaintiff's actions 
“the contract was broken and cancelied by plaintiff and not by de- 
fendant,* and that if plaintii? suffered any damages they “were 
eaused by piaintiff's failure to take the said bonds upen a five 
per cent. cushion as agreed,.* 

on the trial Herbert ©. Heller was plaintiff's principal 
witness, Herbert @. Ferd, plaintiff's "field representative," alee 
testified and plaintiff introduced certain writings, including 
those mentioned in ites declaration, Defendant's principal witness 
was Delmar ©. Gee, a Chicago broker in special aeeessment bonds 
and defendant's representative in the negotiations with Meller and 
ethers. fer defendant, John J. Dewdle, its vecretary, testified, 
as 414 J, 5. Conrad, treasurer of Canneli-Gonrad Genstruction Go., 
snd Holland a. Cassidy, a Ohicage atierney specializing in municipal 
bond matters. 

Ag to the technical meaning of the term “oushion,” in con- 
nection with municipal bonds, Heller testified tant “a cushion is 
the amount of the tax levied against a district in exeess of that 
whieh ie required te pay the full interest and prineipal of the 
bends as they mature, end thet amount whieh is greater than is ree 
quired te pay for the interest and prineipal ie considered a eushion 
or reserve fund.* Cassidy testified: 


"The matter ef ‘sushion', or adequate reserve, is something 
which I, an an attorney passing upon municipal bond tasues, must 


i lt? . , F igs 4 
si Hy SCM tii ——— ae 
ory —— 


—2 aes dada eD tase baw ———— —— — “ry eA 





ait bios vax⸗ ass —* te eure s ont sue ores ot aabar ne ea * q 

he bawow Paaban bat Meme ci ah Mubgatetq nails qodte nents * an of 

| “deattase bles 099. kqmee of beanies ton basi Plamtaty bed nab ny * 
| Riise 












eaotton ——— xe sacs alge ka —E — oid 


9 TEE. Osan 
4 i 


“oh ve son box Tidenivig yd bosiéeoase bas aoiond call toartaos nf <3 7 
— woud asyeaab yor bece Tse viasatets 2 * tat tue a 


RN 








oa fenton sa. ce! Mvatedg aw xektoul +o sindxot doles ond a0 — 
* if lel *,ovitedueget ges bin kt? at vidtatatg tro * ———— ae * 
 gabbeload , ,agakiw aladto9 besuborsat m⸗au in tae ———— 
sseagin dagiaaiue @! daabite tet solteretooh ase a beaoksaem sak ie 

— bade uo a tooa⸗ as asdend omen 139 a 1208 a * 
ban seliok ad anoltal sogen and all ortiernenerses at 6 ; 
DoLthaane sftadoroen 092 ,oLbwod % ade’. sfnobao teh xo ; 


+100 M@hsowtde av batupd=Lieansd te romano downed i x ate * 
faéqielnum at galuifatoaca Weeted ta ews kid * > V—— ————— 














het sl 


BAS ae | : 
Biel 





— 
J ie 
J 


wnee at’ ——— — —7 — ne lastest oats ot aA oe — 
2 aoddnus a” aau holtivesd ao caou ,abaod toqie tase ithe ani von 


cant big aaaeaa Bt tointene a funtage haive. xed oda * meat 
Seo i ame REL 

⸗a: te Laqioalrg bas seotedat sinh eas ree a pexkupes sh — 

“oe al raed etaowy at sto aw snwoms taste ‘baw serutom was ee 


mee vay tes — 








SW pieyy 


“shots tone —— —“ 






guidganes al ,oviseet etanpebs 70 — —— —D—— Pe git 
Jase eouas boo’ teglolaue aequ gatesad youre: tia aa ae 





give heed. ** Thene particular bonds were payable only out of the 
assessments. Ordinarily, there is more intereet expended on the 
bonds than there is collected. In the ordinary job it runs about 
6 per cent, but, of course, there are always miner leases on ac- 
count of errors in computations and collections; so that on a job 
of this type you find the average loenes about 7 per cent.,-- a 
little more or ao little less. The wathematical computation of it 
ie 6 per cent., eo that with «2 5 per cent. cushion for the intorest 
deficiency fund, your bonds will not ppy out in full. Im other 
words, there is not snough woney there to satisfy the obligations. 
It waa my opinion at that time that @ 10 per cent. cushion would be 
safe, but ae the facts developed that was not even eneugh. How. 
ever, that was my view then and I told them ag.* 

Dewdle, defendant's witness, testified that defendant was 
ene of the bidders fer the Yilmette sewer contract; that it had 
mo contract arrangements “ith the Cantiell-Conrad Co.; that defendart 
aid not receive any of the Wilmette bonds or anything out of their 

and 

issue;/that defendant has hed several contracts on whieh epecial 
assessment bonds were issued. J. B. Conrad, defendant's witness, 
testified thet in April and May, 1930, and thereafter, be wae the 
secretary and treasurer of the Canneli-Vonrad GCo., whieh was en- 
gaged in the contracting tuviness; that he put in a bid for the con 
tract for the Wilmette sewer; that he was the low bidder an4 the 
contract was awarded to him; thd that defendant company had also 
put in « bid for the contract. 

From the tostimony of defendant's vitnesses, Gee, Conrad 
and Cassidy, correborated in many particulars by the teatimeny of 
Plaintiff's witnesses, Heller and Ferd, the following facts in sub- 
atance appear: Prior te April #23, 1930, the Village of Tilmette 
had advertised for bide fer the construction of the sewer syetem,-- 
the cost to be paid for in special assesenent bends. Defendant 
desired te make a bid fer tae work, and, pricr to making it, sought 
te obtain from a responsible party « binding comultment for the 
purchase of these bends which defendant might receive in payment 
for its work, in case its bid was accepted and it secured the con- 


tract, and it employed Gee, the breker, te obtain sueh a commitnent, 


etc., who thereafter personally negotiated with Seller in New York 


& 


et? Yo two YAO oddwyeq grew shaed teivaiiaag ewe <4 dood ov bs 
ai? 0 behoeexe duetesak eso ak erect WSTHGLETO =. ae eee 
feeds enet 2 do ysadiare wat 2 eh oted? made 
“oe as e9aae! Tonle syarla ons oxadd +O2%HOS Te ted fron ~ he 
Wel 4 ae tact oa jetolsve lions baw sautzetuques at eter 
& o~,.7%o see T tuedea soenod snaveve ed? Salt nee oaed —— 
oh Te Roiietounco Lapisamedina wf? gael —— “26 exem 6, 
tants sas at? “6% aodions .tape tay @ a dttw tend 04 


pede eae Vika't ah due Yay Yom Like ebaed tude at Riad 

stagt sage ico ot Utultas of sxedd yoaom stavene Jon ef ered? ,ehxow 
— fy sane fall temeeeh coon tat ae 
OM on mms htet % baa’ dear eae gh eae eae ve 
adv Fashastes add bo fiisend peeontiw ‘at tactic tes ————— 
bert 22 tous ;foratnos Teves ae te —— 
Suihne'teh todd 7,50 beraed~Lionied ent div evaemegmennd” oe a 
Beate “lo Ye yabdtynn ao abated SPtomtIT edd Ye — — Fon? th 
fatesqa i biw mo edonttnes fetewwe tor enn 3 Ss hae'tos gait ow : 
‘Agondiw e'iasbaoteh ,hermed .& Rade dbw WeHee tbls 
acid Gew ort rnd tootedd Bae YOCEL ,yeM Kad “Livqa’ ‘a ‘that bo stent 
Tae tan Hokaie 60) evaodatiednis® wat Te Hominaet! ha yteleteNe 
“09 Git Got bid @ wi Guy mai Yadd ‘preenteny sattuerdmes ete wt bang 
| OAS bad tebbkd wal wile wew 08 Fede Yeewoe —— i“— 
ee pha qungene Jusbubton Feist Hale pate oF ‘bethieme ele FubetldD 
SiamRO heh ae x50. 1 Pkt ayaa stents OF at Bde Wk ie 

| Betws? ,e08 jeosnwntty atzauddete tH yuonteiey Way tort — 
Ye vasataues say yo exwtwelrtog quai Ul Betawodte be \eateded Sib 
“sda ab atest yatwoltot ott \ox0% Hae dette eeeiionrty BME) 
SttomlIW to oyedseV edt ,OF@L ,68 LinqA of totes stibean bene 
<< Mndeye tiwou ans tw mottaed aeos Wile tut Wite tet Senffeevhe hed 
 ttahee ted = .absod fnomtwsen Letoogn AP xoX Bey bd oF — 
Styvon th yubien ef sora Saw Kaew way Hod Rho bode BF Heed 
6 TOT feent tongs yothatd 6 yHeoy wT tnnodtes W nue dteddy | 

Peery ni oviooer shy tm Yawhie'tes xo tdw anced wwedt Yo weadee 

~Hue sft hetvere Ff hae hetquoce vew BEF #9E were int kee dee 
. food Lama 2 dove aladde of ,tedtor’ ety ,b00 Rete lque dh * — 


Arey weit at NeSENM st be Dothite dpe Ueleneweeg 40 


















































city. After Gee's return to Chicago and after some long distance 
telephone conversations, plaintiff submitted ites said sonditional 
offer, as contained in ite telegram of April 28th, to buy the bonds 
at 93 cents on the dellar, and defendunt accepted the offer by its 
telegram of April 29th. On the following day Gee had another tele- 
phone conversation with Helier, whieh wae fellowed by defendant's 
letter of Kay lst. Gm May Gth the Village awarded the contract to 
the Canneli-Conrad Co., which was the lowest bidder, and plaintiff, 
advised of such awarding, at once started to cause the district, in 
whieh the proposed sewer improvement wae te be made, to be inspected. 
Heller caused plaintiff's “field representative," Ford, to come to 
Chicago and wake certain preliminary investigations, ond en Monday, 
May 12th, Heller arrived in Chieago, and, in sompany with Gee, per- 
sonally inepected the district. During the inepeetion trip Heller 
atated that there wae more unimproved property in the distriet then 
he had expected to find. On the following day there was a meeting, 
at which Heller, Gee, Conrad and Cassidy were present. There was 
talk about plaintiff accepting the opinion of Caesidy instead of 
that ef Chapman and Cutler, and much conversation was had as to the 
amount of the reserve cushion. Helier stated that he did net think 
that plaintiff could accept the bonds with a five per cent. eushion, 
and demanded a ten per cent. cushion. Conrad stated that, as plain- 
tiff's offer mentioned a five per cent. cushion, he would not agree 
to @ ten per cent. cushion. Cassidy stated that, as an attorney, he 
could net approve a five per cent. cushion and that he "would net 
write an approving opinion without a larger cushion fund." The 
question of the amount of the cushion was left unsettled and there 
was another meeting on the next day (May 14th) in Cassidy's office, 
and negotiations as toe the amount ef the cushion were reeumed, At 


that meeting Heller and Yord were present; also Gee, Conrad and 


¥4 

¢ ea 
an et 
SoS 


ebuntes paok atom xos'te bua egea 2a of — ot 990. shh 










—— — — — — — eek best iniue witemiete sanep tonto race —* 
abmod ast eos os sites thega te anrgeied see ab entwsa09 ce * 
wee ee wTte ous betqoose — bas radio | eas) ao. * : ar 4 
at tushon ed ya hewaktet, wae go. abo * ie | sate * ni ova — 





A⸗n On bas ,wbsdd au oad aw tio hele vat 55% - formed ost 
— —————— * 
beteoernl +2 of , shut od pf aw — — —— 
oF nes of (bret? —————— —R—— i ei 





“toy ,900 agin ywnqaee nk bam popee ddd. mn hevicia 194 
teileR qi<3 noltosgant ei? gaduatt «te ladalh. oad, Sarge 
‘ted? Yottgakh vay ai yereqotg hoverqmbay. Ores Bow onadtt f 
\ualdeom « eae ex08t yab yatvotse® ext. hae D gt satvog J 
aaw exodl sfanaeng o4ew chtsend Daw bexmed «90d. i Lak i a 
To hastant YSeve to antutqe on? wabtenoss Yheatete. soe Stes 
odd tn. bait cow ned tenrovnee: dene, bee VIAL dag mega Yo | tas | 
dakoeo wed Oth ol sat hetade geLiel.  .aetdem. Se ong Xo samen 
 ~aoltnie .tn90 Y9q Bxytt a dative shacd od? Sqeone, ALaso, Viddetely test if 
-akniy #e ,Jhcs begets horned .nedviaue .¢aen xoq, ged. bobs daa 
oetpe fon bivew ox ,woldawe .6mep a9q gust # henohtnom sotto at mus | 
ad ,yemette sous , tal? tedade ybieea® .mokioup .toep t9q ged ae 
ton Skuaw® om sunt dom nokdlane .dne9 19g AUER « evotege ton bingo 
— 
“otto o'ybiewed a2 ((0oL yet) yd teem edt no gaktoam sodden 
“th Reusaot ore solinne ott te tawoms ond, oe ee utsatenan zõ— 


"he Battie jeo0 eatd jtasewte evow Brot ns te et 




















Cassidy. Gee testified: “Conrad asked Heller what conelusion he 
had come to and Heller said that he had met changed his mind, -- 
he would take the bonds on a ten per cent. cushion, Thereupon 
Conrad said: ‘The deal ie off'; * * and Conrad left the room." 
Gee's testimony is correborated by that ef Conrad and Cassidy. 
Heller teatified in substance that he never actually refused to 
take the bonds with a five per cent. cussion. On the same day, 
and after said meeting, however, from plaintiff's Chicago office, 
Heller wrete defendant in part as follows: 


"In acecrdanee With eur agreement regarding the Wilmette 
sewer bonds * *, we beg to advise you that since eoming to Chicago 
last Monday we have been investigating this job **. During the 
conversation with Xr. Gee and br. Conrad * *, we were willing to 
accept Yoliand Cassidy's opinion, and then get Clay & Dillon, of 
Rew York, to approve the bonds at our mutual expense, 

During the course of conversation, Mr. Cascidy stated 
that in hie opinion the bonds might be unsafe with » 5% eushion 
We are this day taking the matter up with Chapman & Cutler, these 
opinion you originally agreed to give us, and wish te go on reeord 
that we have not turned down the bond iseue with thie 9% eushion, 
and will net do so unui we have the opportunity to investigate the 
matter thoroughly eurselves, * *, Therefore, we will advise you 
at the earliest peesible moment our findings im this matter. You 
know that we made the propésition to sign up immediately, accepting 
these bonds with a 10% cushion, but, upon your refusal of this, 
have te make certain, through our investigations and our attorney's, 
that a 5% cushion is sufficient. We will * * advise you ae ason as 
we have concluded our investigations whether we will accept same 














id 












* * te 4 


Plaintiff's evidence further disclosed that subsequent to 
sald meeting of Hay 14th, at which Comrad declared the “deal* vith 
Plaintiff to be “off,* the Cannell-Conrad Co. entered into a formal 
written agreement, dated May 15, 1930, with the Carleton D. Beh Co., 
of Des Moines, iowa, whereby the former Co. agreed te sell and de- 
liver to the latter Co., under stipulated terms, certain bonds ise 
sued by the Village ef Wilmette for aaid sewer improveeent “at the 
price of 95 cents on the dollar plus accrued interest." Pisaintiff's 
evidence further disclosed that the Village thereafter iseued sewer 
bonds to Cannell-Conrad Ue., as contractor, in the total par value 


of $1,311,000; and that of these bonds approximately $800,000 were 


* 


a oeleutanoe fate s9eiish bedsa betaed” thed Maot sen on ce 
ss (bale eid begnede Jen best sal esd bias woLton hae oe S00 bas 


7 a SON ie 


sequexed? .moldeno .dnee xo¢ aes a a6 ebood axis eine bauew ed 


moot ast? Pts hwrned ban * © ;'729 a Lawb ont" ‘Dhan besa 


wblees? bas Berto Yo tess ve beserodenxes of wonttest ‘eon 
et bauwtet tidasten seven ead pass sonngedus ok bertizecs * 
qe owas oad no mo tnnue »a90 109 axils sig bw abaod acid east 
sien rr — wort _ torowed sak too baw wis * 








ertomiiv odd gatbteget —533 — 55 ————— Ps ee 
_tageld ef galace soaie stadt voy endvhe oF ged om * —— 
acy pains .** dot alsdt paivegisaeral aeed evans 
Of galiiie ox a* * bores. . vi hha ook: tet: riper resi 
* Mei lIe & — Hag? hea ,meiaiqe e 


itches —— ese 2ee se hoe 
* ve. * — — Yo ensues ods gmt 
















EO% ae. — kcslebee thee: esl. Baye hevigh ed is 
“ flohdens 72 eid? stiw emeel baed oct awoh bemist fon ey 
add sdagitaernt of yehandioqge edt evad oF”, gi ai” oat 
sey oeivhs iflw ew ,eislerest .* * ,2ewls 
ug. stottam eid? af agabhait ‘que Sesame 
galsgeves ,yiodalbousl qa apie of solitnds 

yaiss Yo fanstet suey aoqe .aed y 

oe" yontesta “soy hae eaolktagizeoval 10. — Maine —*2 $f 
ae nese aa Woy onivhn * * Lite oW> .dapdultnew #h — 2 * 
— — ——— emia hig bebalewoa 












at diate tand heogloalh wsatav't eoushive a) ieadest 
“bbe "Lash" add boraloeh hataed oldu $e uted yale yateved blew 
—* 4 ofm2 hersie sod Setsed~Livamed se “Tie” ef ot Vrbvatety 
6-04 Mok .2 mosoiwed a9) addy a Deted , Treietye wo Bate 
ath ban £foo od buprye cod apart esd ydewedio \awel” weston e0e Ye 
~2h aduad alaties ,xoes hotainelte noha v0 restart’ eats of — 
etd ga" tapwavorqut towee bias sot attemt2W Te ountik¥ oxtt @ bien” 
s"YAisadech *.¢eeregad. bevteee mule tales ond ie agugo_ 28 ‘we bat 
tose overt wo tiaonets oyelEe¥ ode Sac bowoshnth gonten't sononsye . 


> * 


astey 30q, dagod ons ad ,tosemesngo 88 j +0 beunodeffonned ob cy 
exe 000, 0068 ) Uietenknerags haed eueds to sane had — 0 





TENE 


“nee 


a 1 
7 
* 
ẽ — E ze % 


delivered in turn to the Carleton ». Bek Co., which paid for them 
at the rate of 95 cents on the doliar during a period of about a 
year, during whieh period the prevailing market price of the bonds 
was par, ‘The amount claimed by plaintiff as damages is 991,770, 
being the difference between the par value of the issued bonds, 
$1,311,000, and the same number of bonds at 04 cente on the dollar, 
being the price bid by plaintiff in ite telegram of April 28, 1930. 
Plaintiff's counsel, in urging a reversal of the trial 
court's judgment, contend in substance (1) that plaintiff's tele- 
gram of April 28, 1930, and defendant's reply telegram of April 
29th, “ae modified by the subsequent mutual agreement of the 
parties” (evidently referring to defendant's letter of Kay 1,1950), 
constituted a binding contract for the sale by defendant te plain- 
tiff of the bonds in question at the orice of 93 cents on the dol- 
lar; and (2) that defendant breached suid contract by ite failure 
te deliver te plaintiff such bonds as were issued by the Village 
of Wilmette, te plaintiff's damage as claimed, We cannet agree 
with either contention, Plaintiff's offer or bid, as contained 
in ite telegram of April 28th, cannot be considered as an un- 
qualified one. It war made subject te (a) the Legal opinion of 
Chapman 4 Cutler; (b) the inspection and approval of the district 
by plaintiff's president, Heller; and (¢) the district was “to 
have a 5% reserve cushion.” And in accepting the conditional offer 
by wire, defendant 4i4 #9 on sonditien that “we are successful.“ 
It ia clear to us that, prior to Heller's inepection of the dis- 
trict and plaintiff's obtaining a satisfactory epinion, the 
parties 414 not intend to make a binding contract as regards the 
bonds to be issued by the Village, but that it was the intention, 
after said inspection and aperoval of the district had been made ond 
the satisfactory opinion of a qualified attorney had been given, 


that a formal contract would be drafted and executed by the parties, 


8.. 


* 


seid tet Aley sidtdw ,,09 dod © medecend off OF mad ab heueehiod: — 


« uote te boltea & paliwd twilobd wld movasnes @0 te osar emt bar 
ehned S00 Ye ssi sodtam gnikiuverg’s6d —— aabtub yasey 
OPV 206 Of seneueb ea ‘Trhtalaly <¢ boaale taueda edt in hil 
SbRee Dowead eis Te eWtet taq od aewled enaseeTRAb asd” a oe 
{tolleh edt we efaew OR da abtiod to “edaum éiin Md Brew’ et 
-O8@£ (92 LGA Yo Mengeted Wet of Btteataka yt bie — * 
ope bed aol Re Maetenee 2 Gatgte at preemes é ribdatere>! St 
aofed attttsutele tad? (£)-esaededua wh Kineenoe ——— 
KEG Lo ReryE Lot Yor et acia nas OH bad CREE: yes — — * 











& Boe 


— 6 drome Tye etna tapopendue ete: ol Beit tbeu o · Al . 
Moven,© ‘qall to’ —D 8) anhen to of salva tow ‘eftaesve) | "aod 


— ot tuatne rod * shee one: wot — ———— inal beara u⸗ 








* 


—— gre’ Ry 


oendte? ads —* —ER bts —8R taadaetes — jatar hes . 
‘ gt feet 4 4 oF : 


oma wit we bowsed atew: 4a shane foe Vatsatate of sovt sey oe 







—— a 5 ih aay oe 





bsatnsnon an — we, ate eh Teieaiess suottastace modelo ate 





afte so na. bOTObEAMED od sonmae’ as0e sgh Lo mexgeles eth ab at 





Yo mohatqe tnyet ott (9) of tovtdue han aay or — 


torasery edt To Lavownye bas aohtonqeat oat fa) ried a eared 
ew J * — 


Per i ee 


wTe fanoks Lbsoo ott pateqooue a cy | * motewe overseer * a na 
, ‘ RE yadio oe t oe 


* . Lutenvoowe »a⸗ owt gusts aor steaoe so oo Ath tmaaneten nly 
eae ae ‘Whe ie 
“att este te noltovaent a ‘soto of xolse « tat a 08 ** el 


ast ,noiaiee (tovonte tine & aatata: so etritintete ‘tom pi 

Lo gid LES Gaeta kent 

ot ebraget am toazé nee atbard * eta ot bevdnt ton ars a ey 

Ret Atay tel meee tno connie rae hy Ty HP RS deh ales: Nw is 
— aoktaed eit caw oh roid dua n ose  bewes bewned cs 


rk ae 
baw shaw used Sert tobaieis ould te Lavotwen ban — soousat “pies 
ot PLee aAP "2 te Rg if 
—* need bos vensoris bortbdews a * matatge qrotoctadan aie 







aebtuae out ya bes usexe bess begtaxh od biuow featenee 


HS 23 Bix a ts 
ts todd 


That such a course of action in usual and customary is evidenced 
by Heller's testimony, given on croas-examination., He testified: 
"I have bought a let of special assesement bonds over a period of 
10 years; that is practically my exelusive business; it ia custo- 
mary when we make @ purchase like thie te have a formal contract 
prepare’; no formal contract was prepared in this inetanee,* 
Furthermere, it clearly anpeare that Heller, himself, did net ¢on- 
eider that a binding contract had been entered inte by said pre- 
liminary telegrams and letter, After he had arrived in Chicage 
and had carefully inapected the district and further negotiations 
were in process, he demanded a ten per cent. cushion instead of a 
five per eent. eushion, ae in the offer or bid of April 28th piain- 
tiff hed preposed. This change im the pronesition vas net agree- 
able either to defendant or the Cannell-Conrad Co. (to which the 
Village had avarded the contract), and as a result, end upon 
Heller's continuing to insist on a ten per cent. cushion, defendant 
and the Cannell-Conrad Co. refured to negetiate further and de- 
Glared that the deal was “eff.” We fail to find in the present 
record evidence, on the part either of defendant or the Gannelie 
Conrad Go., of “weiching" as contended, but we de find evidence of 
euch action on the part of plaintiff's president, Heller, and that 
his agtion and position, taken as te the omount ef the cushion, was 
the sole reason why a final and eatiefactory contract was net exe- 
cuted between the parties, or between plaintiff end the Canneli- 
Conrad Co., relative te said bonds subsequantly to be issued by 

the Village of filmette. 


Sut eonclusion is that the circuit court, under all the 
facts and cireunstances in evidence, was fully warranted in making 
the finding and entering the judgment appealed from. Accordingly, 
the jutgment will be sffirmed, 

AFVIREED. 


Seanlian, ?. J., and Sullivan, J., concur. 


® 


beonebive si gremeteus baw iawee ef soltoe Ye eexveo # dame, dost 
tbekilger? of aolfentmexe-raeto mo nevig ,ymaltess eso flok ad 
te boicen # teve abnod Jnpmaeten falasge te fot « satgued ovad I” 
cateuo ai of jagsains! ovieulone ya yiteoltesng at tesit jeteey OF 
Soatieos Lmatot « ova of eit sail eeatoung & odie ow cee Wiest 
*,suoetact aise af Retaget¢ aay Joetoace tammet om photeqe: 
nies don bib ,Uieeald .weLish tart? emcees yleande oh — 
~eug Ataa ys otal hemedne ased bad toexrtaos. guthahd w godt robte 
agaatds of hevizas hast or KeFtA .tetsad hom, emmrgeing yas ul o 
sagttntiogem xeddtgt bas siwelh adj hoteoqead yitsiezas edt he 
# to heotant aoideve .fu@e tq go2 # dabaausd ect canooetg ak enw 
nahaia A22S Ligh Yo bid we. teTRe sat ab on ,aoldnne. — 
-oanys fon sae aoithvanetg eat ak agnede aidt ..beregosq het 3 
ent dak of) 00 batued=Lionnad of? <0 tambon ot redste ede 
moqu bas ,tiowec « en Saw , (doertace and behiwrs And opectey 








 faihae'teh ,weldes tan teq gee « mo delenit of wiituntinop #! voLtoR 


~oh hua teditst efalitoysa of heautes 108 hergaod~Lionaed, aed, dae 
toeantq ods of bait of fist o% "ite" sew. Josh said dadd ponte 
eifanmad ef? x0 tarhasteb Ye xitie dung oct ae paonnbive prose 
‘to apipbive ball ob ew tud -pobuwsace ox "gatdoiee” to , 90 hermd 


fast ban ,toLfeK ,sasbleciq 2 Thidalele to ¢teq edt ae molten gave 


aay ,foidags eft Lo Sauome axl? oF an mete? ,moltiaeg baw. aalioe ats 
ete gon sew Joersnes ytodeake lise bane faakt #4. wiv _nonent ofoa odd 
=LisnneD ef) bas Viliaiely seowied te .peliaeq osi3. manted botu t 

Nt hemmed, of,0% Tinepypenden shaed has 63 eviseser ..99 heumed 
<otgombi® to spot tly ~~ 


ont Lia sohas ,diuoa shuoalo eld Aang wt Alausengs $60 ee 
gatian al hetoe rae ein saw ,ogaebive ak L eseasteavetio har at: 






VetgaihrovsA mort beLesqqe sremybut oie yatvedm ——— 
ebomtht te od tite —— 


MAT OTA 








36297 * 
GEORGE Je WILLIAMS, 
Appellant» APPRAL FROM MUNICIPAL 
Ve COURT OF CHICAGG.s 
LOUIS SCHWARTZ» an b 
Appellees /t> T AN te 
2 ¢ UY 4 A. 6 2 By 


WRe JUGTICE GRIDLEY DSLIVERED THA OPINION OF THR COURT. 


Om June 13, 1932, plaintiff eaused a judgment by con- 
feaeion for $552.50 te be entered againet defendant on a written 
lease. The amount claimed was $500 and the sum of $5250 was 
included in the judgment as sttorney's fees. Subsequentiy, on 
defendant's verified petition, the court ordered that the judgment 
be opened and defendant be given leeve to defend, that the petition 
stand as an affidavit of merits, and that the judgment as confessed 
stand as eecurity, ete. buring the trial without « jury im July, 
1932, and after veth parties had introduced evidence, defendant, 
by leave of court, filed an amended affidavit of merits, anc the 
eourt found the issues against plaintiff and entered judgment 
againet him fer ceste. The present appeal followed. 

Om the trial plaintiff, without objection, introduced 
the originel lease im evidemee. 1% is dated March 19, 1950, is 
on a printed form filled in with typewriting, and is signee by 
plaintiff and by “Louis ichwarts." By it plaintiff, as lessor, 
leased to Schwartz, as lesse¢, an apartment on the second fleer 
of a building Ikmovn as 5052 Yoodlawn avenue, Chicagoe The term 
is from May 1, 1930 umtil April 30, 1931, with the following 
provisot 

“Provided either of the parties te thie lease shall 


have given to the other, three months before suid iast mentioned 
date, notices in writing of his or her intention to terminate this 





= _ garg MORE AKA 
_s00,01KD GO TAUOD 


“eg v8 


—— ae «0 woTREGD ate ian ver 


anes vt rommiet © Seam Trevehate | sitet aot tenth Sis tid te 
° geadicw B HO Seabee Tot demtone Sovetma od af oaesacs x02 A oben i | 
> yew G8.88% to mua ed? bat 0060 vaw demiaka domomn of?» 0 on 
me e¢kinospoudye .209% atysmiedte we dusomia, odd mt bodudom 
dusmmbet odd Jedd boTedTO siwOD od gmoistieg BORE TOV. xo bar 1 
aalsrsed ond gad yhnoed 62 ovael gaviy od Poona baa —R 
‘baensthes eo Imempoe sas den gatitom te sheabst - 
eke wh vast @ tuadete Ledut off gate — —ñ 
sttabasteG qoouebive beowbontal heal aaldueg déad site dae, gREOL 
odd bam yediiem Yo Siyabi Ye bohnems se bet «@xmo 20, onset. wf 
— hotesns ven Tibdnielg Samtaga sowood od deol — — 
J— — — 
——— — cueacuv An rit al Sabato We oo. ome 
(gh 088k 4,08 doxnih beds ad VL veomvbive mb sanet tantutxe 9 
(et Bonga wt one spaksheweaye Modw sb Sekt Dumod ade i oO 
Weoedel oa ,Vitdnate Ht YE © Mndewsen —— * — — 































Elada couet aid’ ot aghs: ———— enya” 
hemottaem deal blon ereted edtngat eomtd yxerldo ult 63 wevig G¥ed 
als? edeniaved of seltaetal ved to aid te. ne A elven yoda 


ole 


lease on eaid last mentioned By ents otherwise thie lease shall 
continue in foree for z and im the came 
omy teen veer SO yore maid parties dexii tadeene le ees 
by like notice in writing in some ensuing year in manner afore- 
ie jar ie thal pele ake 

In comsideration of the ¢emise, the lessee covenante 
and agrees inter alia “to pay as rent for said demined premises 
anmunlly the eum ef $2100, payable in monthly imatallments of 9175 
per month in advance upon the first day of euch and every month 
during the life of this lease, at the office of George Js “illiema, 
1435 E. 60th street." The lessee's other covenants are these 
commoniy found in such inetruments. Ome of them is that “he hag 
examined and knows the condition of seid premises ant has received 
the same in good order and repair, exeept as herein otherwice speei- 
fied, * * ané upon the termination of this leave, in any way, will 
yield up acid premises te anid Jeseor in ae geod condition as when 
the game were entered upon by said leasee, ordinary wear and tear 
only excepted." And there is the uouel clause authorizing the 
entry of a judgment by confession against the lessee at any t ime 
for rent due and unpaid, together with “a ressoneble sum, but at 
mo time less then $56, for plaintiff's atterney's feeas* imeediately 
aveve the signatures ia the statement: “Deeerating list att«ohed,” 
and said ligt, attached ae «a rider, is as fellewat 





CGsicimine ceilings throughout excepting bathrooms and kitchen paint. 

Prent ewanperler peint brick and wecdworky caulk openings eround 
winders frames 

living room - papers wach woodworks 

Dining Reem - ¥ borderjg wash woedwork. 

¥ali cleset « ede 

ieng hall - — woodwork painted. 

Pirst chember paper an¢ paint weodworke 

Segené chanker paper and paint woodwork. 

Third chamber paper and paint woodwork. 

Fourth chamber paper and paint woodwork. 

Place rediater between a windowue 

Back sumpsrler - painted 

Kitchen and butler pantry paintec including woodwork. 

Haid's room papered. 


——— 


—F 


Séols cuaed. abdd — 22 —— poset cna * bias ne teannl 


pawey Pym Bango F is) mist sesigore “eh aenct ak aawhinos 
wired 25 bees ba OSD : Bosh wenn 


— oft esentersod Lier gets vad bee cae te bee Litew v8) 908 


“siete tetma at tae — imen wi gabaier ai eelkéon ofli yl 
to bee Go fe save ra aid? odanimved finds Dine andr seh abies 


“, slo aed ofe soalaong Bim Rs nwo ont 
sé@mateves oonsel ad? gsakueb osld to sotinrobies — 

yooineny besiae bias wot taos am you of* aise stat acon bl 
ARES Yo wéuomtiasaat Vaanen at ksneng «00685 ve mie on? —haamen 
diaes Urs baw does Yo Yad soxkt ond aogas pms sat — 
samatis® <% oprood te eobtke até da gdunel add 20 ith oat oi pa 
Seed? ove adannovos quate atnanees att “steonts dgoe 6 Beat 
pail anf” Sada of vend Re om? sedmemnésat dove nd towed alone 
dovivoor wath bmn pot lanv Ahan be malebhane.- oh? qrend bene bomkmant 
~tooqn salvtmldo alerpd ee dqonme .sheges dan mebso hoes sh meee) — 
tAln Nae une mh + pesed etde. 20 — — “ a — 

Sen os Gal iLoneD. boo ae ni oRwOL Biss oF moeimmRR | tae qe toby 






























su om: to. cone esd: teehangh' sedieatiane ee NR ae 

| $6 did yee Oidanoenot 8” date wedsoged yhtagne bam ved deel 
Ustul rend %4¢99% atqonsesis at tiitmiaky aot 98OG nmitt: weaken at —— 
— bacipadda dukk »——————— pdoompdate wit eh — * ome | 

- ANHOLEOY Be rehta wma bm i tien ke 























tout ong — eanouaso mgatites syatiive omtateted oc 


eos 


A411 closets enleimined and radinters painted. 

Sew gas stoves barg repaireé on rear windows. 

SLeors varniahed ex painted Chroucheut an needed. 

Gites & a! Ghamdieliers fer reeeption room. “un parlor, 
int wn sitive 

Replace anc elean all ahadea, 

im defendant's verified petition, upon the atrength of 
which the court openec the jucgment sad ordered that the petition 
ehowule stand as an affidavit of merite, he wlieged thet the confessed 
judguent “was entered upon a certain lease executed om Mareh 10, 
1930, in whieh the plaintirf herein waa the lessor and the defendant 
She Jessee;” that the confessed judgment, leas the attorney's feem, 
“was for vental aceruing after ‘pril 36, 19%1, — the expiration 
éate under the terme of the lease," and that the confessed Judgment 
isn “without authority of law." «nd he clleged, “ae a further 
defense,” that, "im the month of Mareh, 1951, inacmuch as the lease 
previded that plnimtiff should decorate, repeint ani varnigh the 
premises, and inasmuch ae plaintiff wae useable at the time se te de,* 
plaintif? and defendant entered inte an agreament thet, "im cane 
sideration ef defendant waiving Bio right of ineioting wpen said 
éecoratings, pisimtiff sgreet te reduce the rental is the sum ef 
$500, which iz the amount herein sued for.* 

Upew the defenses, as above atatec, the cause esme on 
for hearing im July, 193% It wor agreed by © eapective counsel 
that at no time prior te April 30, 1951, had any written nelice 
been served by either party upen the other terminating the lease 
Gh Apeil 30, 1931, av mentioned tu the provine of the lease shove 
referseé to, ad 44 appeared that defendant md his wife ha¢ con- 
timeed te occupy the premises se a rezidenee until about “pri 
505 2062. It wes plaintiff's theory that, inaemuch ac the lessee 
hed not been terminated om April 56, 1931, by notice ace provided, 
it became in effect a two-year lease, expiring April 30, 1932, 





— —— ote need stoompaut, Speostews oe dase 





| beanetnes add taal Segetts af selina #ewsbittea ap aa one ania 





¢ Teme odd sow Bhowad Vitintale old as dau at 0 ’ 














nat tach galt m glROk got gags gatte wa a nee 


Fe 9m Aesewkacs od dentd hee * son wt em a oth 


“ie wid on dommant ,L0CL domed Te ottnen aate Me. state: * — 


ss 9 


wels co — ma" ghogeden ont bev. J. wnd te yee hadeleun dase 





“etd Aelmrey tins Integer godwrdoeh Sivade TAvmbaty ecus bedt vom 
"05 oF oe omld ot Es ieee wow Titednke as sommmesth haw «won teen 
“aneo RE qteit? GummmoTye be wet bee saw dmabewtio hikes Wekdmkalle 
* hogy gate tart te digit eid gihview tashactsd te neltoradiy 

Te man aed Ete oats OE OF — ⸗ neta * ob 
0 Mees Cnmed Wed 4 botede evede an — — 
| Esahweo svidosqee < yd hoowgecew ¢T sae t 

“Wak sO Metab vae aan ieee 408 £ - a 























— 


unier the stipulated rental of $175 a month. This theory is in 
accord with several decisions of appellate courte of this district. 
(See Williams ve Veeder, 195 Ill» Apps 413, 4143 Morris v. Taylor, 
199 id. 583, 892-2.) 

Plaintiff war a witneas in his own behalf and hie secretary 
and stenographer, Hexel Anderson, teatified for him. Motice to pre- 
duce certain original letters from plaintist to defendant, dated May 
4th, June 2nd and July 6th, 1931, was served upon defendant prier te 
the trial, but the originale were net preduced and caxbon copies of 
them were admitted in evidence, after proe? had been made ef the 
originals having been dictated amd signed by plaintiff and duly 
maileds Plaintiff testified om direct examination that his business 
wag that of managing amd taking care ef his own real estate; that he 
had never met defendant personally “before teduy;” that he had two 
offices « the main one being at 1435 East 60th atrect, Chieages that 
defendant régularly paid the stipulated rent of $275 a month up to 
anc including the month of April, 19513 thet during the following 
year he paid only 7150 « monthy that the cheeks for the rent vere 
duly reeecived by plaintiff and oredited on defendant's accounts that 
he wrote letters to defendant, concerning the renta} payments ef enly 
$150 a month, in May, June and July, 19313 and that in May, 1952, 
after defendant had waeated the premises, he received two letters 
from defendant, dated, respectively, May 14th and 1éth, 1932. These 
twe letters were offereé in evidence on the theory that they contained 
material admissions by ¢efendant, but the court refused te admit 
them. The copies of plaintiff's letters to defendant of May 4th, 
June 2nd amd July 6th, 19351, are as follows: 


(May 4th). “Your cheek for 9150 on account of May rent 
has been received. Kindly let me have a cheek for the remaining 


$25. * #* 
(Jume 2nd) “As you kmow, your rent for your apartment 


ie $1795 per wonth. Last month you remitted $150, which I have 
erediteé on account of May rent, leaving a balanee of $25. Your 





— yeh suns J —————— 


—E—— eld mt eewasiw a Tiksatert 
orn of sotion amis 202 nattkieed «mowxebe' Sonali «teages 
Yak beded stanna tee of Lilinkely mort atediel laatgive aiadsee gout 
of xelm tastackel moge bevtwe gaw _LkGL gAtd * one vin Hlth 
os aelgne andxce tne hoowbeig son x5y ahontyize ome sud glaki? 0 
Sat 20 ahem mood bad Teomy rests senmebive st bods teats, J * 
en ass Noertala bomata bas Dodadeto nssd gneve 


7 
ee RED 
SER ee ae 

















oe — asso 4 wrx te ‘anos betabagtse * —* SOR — 
pitt woi.to? nai’ wakosd fads gLeel gfinge * ia — ak bef 








ach saan 2! #mabapded, mo — * Rib aed ay * — —* . 
Uno Yo atusmyeg delacz ots gularcoage. ag —* ore 

pi ous bevivsss of yueadmag ate pedseet bad sna ba 2b sean 

CuekT  -2E0L .Ss8L bun Add Yo yhovegongest adoted 









thane od beasties —D pong ow ech ntcenbectaliectl chee . 
dd Yai Lo Inabwoked ef wrodied a Rbinkads te aetger oa madd 


si es Ppp Hanns 








check today for $150 has been received, and I have eredited $25 
om account of Mey rent and 9125 om account of June rent, leaving 
Selineee on June rent of 950, which you will kindly remit and 

° a 


(July 6th) “You de not appear to have any respect for 
Postan‘sad $et’you seat anes vo send a thick for Tasos’ ie Thar 
— on seertnt of iets rents fer chick — 
cheeky otherwise soomer or later this iw going to jand in court.* 

It dees not appear that subsequent te July, 1931, and 
until April 30, 1932, plaiutiif wrete any similar letters toe defend- 
ante Plaintiff, however, testified that during May, 1932 (after 
éefendant had moved out of the premises), he wrote several letters te 
defendant, demanding $300 for balanee due for rent. He offered in 
evidence a copy of a letter written by him to defendant on May 6, 
1952, in which was enclosed an account, showing a Balance due of 
$300, and in which if is stated: "Kindly let me have your eneck 
within five days for the ssme, otherwice I shail confess judgment 
under the lease,” ete. Upon the objection of defendant's attorna 
that the lettexs emounted merely te a demand for payment, after the 
termimetion of the lease and prior te the judgment as subsequently 
econfeesed, the court refused to admit sald copys 

tm cross-exemination plaintiff teatified in substances 
that he “handles the building himselfj" that he signa all leases 
himselfy that he has an agent, named Stuart, whe negotiates leases 
and “brings them to me to sign,” but whe is mot authorized to “bind 
me” by any contracts that Stuart supervises the making of «11 re- 
pairs, and decorations, which have been agreed to by Bim (plaimtiff)s 
that the decorations mentioned in the lease were dome shortly after 
the making of the lease im 1950 that Stuart never spoke te him 
about making any new decorations in defendant's apartment in kay, 
1931, or about that time; amd that it is not customary for him 
(plaintiff) to decorate apartments exch year, although “there have 


been cecasions when there has been decorating dome every years” 


" ath OTM th 303 ibe totie 





ios coceiq. Likw nog datde 10% » Ame 
«Sales tt tant of xen uf om te Foy 


ate be eee ws maw! tint ‘is waa J 
‘baited od wetter takhata yin Stow Sereudscg <add oe 2A on 
gids) “Beek egal gabe dost? Dab saded ,tovewad (ht Rati aul 
ot echttot interes sown oil',(noatiioini bit to tle soveoe bait dalabe 
mk hevotte ok duet sot ows oomalad xob dogg gabon’ a 
a8 Yat 0 “daobaeted of mid yt wndd low soda oto ‘wane = # 
“Ye oud sonulad 6 “patwoste etturooos * —E Les at ey a — 
— — 
— —— eobtnos tira T eatwrodtto semen oto cod — — dite fe 
wiriside a4 imsonston Yo mobtontdo sad aug sede “seek acd “ohau 
—* vette — iat ina 2 + hom poe seiteaeh ; 
st — Xon kag élabe ob icant cal 
eomedidhe wf Rel thieed Vibéntaty wollte —R 
o Kia’ amgke of o.atr *Yutnete ‘pat ! 
gions ectaliogon ate .trnud® been Qinege ee —— * 
phd” of bewtronitwn Gon al wet tue ite oe oat ait ae * ii 
eee ELe te geivlaw oft woatyeoque Pumedt sold « ane emi petal 
— sand * meew⸗ —8 Mone ail ———— 

















— 






















ain sot cuanto | tom oi #4 Sonld tna — —— 


mec Ei —— rah — 
— ———— — aie hss. ca uns 


— — — hee 
- 7 a 


ast mate 





AS this stage in the trial plaintiff's attorney atated 
that the repaire mentioned in the rider om the lease were “made by 
the landlord and amounted to mere im value and im cost than $1,000* 
and that he would “concede that none of these repaira wentiened in 
this rider were made agaim the next yoar." Thereupon defendant's 
attorney moved the court fer a findimg in defendant's faver on the 
ground that "plaintiff did not carry out the terms of the lease in 
that he did mot desorate the apartment im 1951.” ‘The court denied 
the motion and directed defendant to put im proof to austain hig 
defense, ag sileged in his verified petition or affidavit of merits, 
(te ey to the effeet that about the time of the beginning of the 
second year of the lease the parties, in consideration of no new 
decorations being made, agreed that there shewld be a veduetion in 
the rental for that year in the oum of 9300.) Thereupon defendant 
took the ateand but he failed te show thet any such agrecment wae 
madé@s He testified in part thet he had Lived at 5062 Yeedlaw 
avenue “fox 12 youre,” ami that plaintig® "was my lapdlerd for about 
S or 6 yeorsg* thot he “didm’t remember* receiving plaintirf's 
letters to him of Hay 4th, Jume 2nd, and July Gtity 1931, copics of 
whieh had been introduced in evideness; and that after the lease in 
question had been signed “he returned it to ire Stuart." He ther 
was asked? "Q» <At the time you signed the lease, did you upderntand 
that it wae a lease for « year or fer more than ome year?” Over 
plaintiff's objection, the eourt allowed him to answer thai "the 
last leese wae not signed for twe yearng it ves supposed te be for 
one year.” Upon being shown the lease nued upon, and upen hia 
attention being directed to the signature “Louie dehwarts" thereon, 
he testified: “That is not my signatureg that ie uy wife's signature.” 
Thereupon defendant's attorney asked leave to file an “amended 
affidavit of meritea,” and, upon the court granting the motion, 
Gefenéant thereafter filec guch a pepers signed and swern ta by 


detnde qomentan o'iideladg Lobet galt mh ogeda ait $6 
WS shan" orev teaak wit no ebhe sd mb Sonoktwe ecteqer 988 tude 
000409 aontd aon mt inn way ah 908 64 bedmvous Sa brorbent ee 
at Sonol deme ackogex vaste Ao errea faded Gheonon” Bkenw em Jedd be 
— imsbe on nogueredt “stnoy sxen ot Rtas ‘thew — ebhe elute 
ots mt torn — * peed beets &. tet sae ott fie iit ES ‘ 
@i waaei wll —— — 
edad suiep ety “)LE0L ah snemicagn sels otonepeh tom bh ox samt 
afd ahevese of teeng mi aum of émnhuyieh petoords dma moddom od 
eaticen 26 tivobl iis xe aelsidog helditey ald of Sepetia es «wanehoh, 
ght 2 ymbenined at YH wale od? tnode dads sookio ode of aa ot), 
Wom on 20 Molsetebinnno mi yselrsag ade penol edd te eam boos = 
ea wok soubor a o¢ bkveds oxad’ dots Seetge aohas gaied eaoléereand, — 
Seabue led moqgse Red: Ay0088 to moe Mel  TA8y | dota, wis F — t 
sar duomownpe sous in dost? ward of DeLhat ott aud demda euls sone 
_ watbee', 840% 20 tewwhe Bat a tat? feng at SeURteene * — — 
tvods Yok Lrokioel ye naw" Aaaniaa date aed i, ma * 
a*tiltabate gutvieost “sedmonie = seman, a 




























Was 


mi gonvt ott sate. tans wre | goomote, a —* * * * 
— ath — wale mts oon amt om * — 
A970 Caney ome ans exam. cet xa Tem 
sie" goed romans Of mid donati⸗ atdonkde — 
ROT gf 04 benongen any as towcey ame 0 somss, tone cow m8 ae —J 













«Fa 


defendant, in which the sole defense stated to plainiifs'a action 
iw thet “he demies that the lease upon which judgment van coutessed 
im thie suit was sigaed by this defendant, anc defendant further 
says that the said signature ‘Louis Schwarts', appearing en said 
Lease, is not the handwriting ef thin defendant." Thereupon the 
court entered the finding and judgment agaimet plaintiff? ae first 
above mentioned. 

After a careful sveview of the record we are of the opinion 
that the court erred in making the finding and im entexing the judg- 
ment. Ye thick thet the court ehowld have ordered thot the judgment 
against cefiadant fer §152055, ase confeased on June 1S, 183%, should 
stans confirmed aa of that date. The judgment as confessed was 
orderec te be opencd Bevause of the claimed defenve as set forth in 
defendant's verified petition, which petition wos ercered te stand 
ae hig affidavit of merits. Upon the trial he woe unable te ea- 
tablish that defense. VPurthermores, when he filed hia “amended 
affidavit of merite” (mot om amendment to the same), he sbandened 
that defense and subatituted a new and different one therefor. 

(See 49 Corpus Juriazy eee. 775, pps 558-9.) And we do not think 

that there is any merit im thei new defenses It my be that 
defendant's wife actually signed bis name to the lease, but it clearly 
appears from his own testimony, as well as plaintiff's, that he 
aéopted the lesse ag his own, jest as if he had actually signed it, 
and his attempted repudiation of it should not have been permitted, 
(see Bayagiane ve Villani, 117 Ilie Appe S72, SYD-6y Henderson ve 


Tlie Appe G41, 6463 Webi es Sriakonn of Sdedtan 12 Le 63, 64.) 


Yor the reasoms indieated the judgment apyealed from ia 
reyerevé aud the enuse ig remanded to the municipal court, with 
Givestions te enter an order thet the judgment of June 15, 1932 
$382.59, as confessed agninst defend a stand in full feres —— 
effect as of the date of ite renditions 

BEVERSSG AMD RG@MAMDED. WITH DIRECTIONS. 
Seaman, 2. Jes and Sullivan, Js, eongurs 





— Pelton ernie: of butate eanetih efee wilt dele at gtuahastod 
me guigagiad, Anite megs sowek odd Yaad vetued ou” Sade 52 
[oa toa Siete tint tos ee ih i vanu 
qld eogeered? “Vemakasteb obdd ty patvtncined da debt ef” * | 
—— rn ae eee ee rene 
 weabahze efi 36 aia Ow Seooen CHS te walyes Ivor Pe 
eee, ea Qekasdio od tae gubaat aoe getelen BE Secxe Cae edd Sails 
— ond Suld howoieo ved bKwase Semen ad fats Heke 4 dean 
biwetia .S0SL yf cmv wo Soows kee ow QSCRELG col daedactel Gamkages 
wk evek ae am cuneled Seaiote ony Bo a of ean 
‘pate of Soxedro zo — Av r — nebtived et anal: 













“ eetoieds one émewittth tan won a hota fe im bee Oa tob take 

| uted fon ob ov ami (60e60e seq LEI soow eniaivt mute * J 

‘eas: sat og tes 3 soanotst won Sasi st om ‘an a at owed ast 
| Miaot ok dud — waht 08 omed ats ‘bonate vhheudns dc be 
“et saat —— eu Liew na Widat deed ne adel soc | 

* »ᷣut⸗ Udewtes aa eet u ae 4 “we ele 8 003k 


—— —— 


| — — E— 


et most belawuge —— war — * 
—D— ad * 

Tok oe aot | 

oone?, 





36332 


WATIOWAL PAPE BOX COe, 
& Corporation, 





Appellee, 
APPRAL FROM RUMICI PAL 
Ve 


PHILIP Se BLOOM COe, 
& corporations 
Appellant. 


COUNT OF CHICAGCe 


270 I.A. 6291 


Mie JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERY PHR OFIBIGH OF THE COUNT. 


— — — — ne Ree — — 


In a 4th class action in contract, tried without a 
jury on June 28, 1932, the court found the issues against 
defendant, aseessed plaintiff's damages at 9995.65, and entered 
guéguent against cefendant in that sum. The present appeal 
followed. 

Im ite otatement of claim plaintiff alleged in substance 
that on August 27, 1951, the parties entered inte « written agree- 
ment (copy attached as exhibit A) for the manufacture and ssle 
by plaintiff, and the purchase by defendants of 250,000 paper 
boxes, at the price ef 917-80 per thousands that after purchasing 
materials, etee, for the manufceture of the boxes, and after 
manufacturing ami delivering to defendant part of the entire order, 
defendant refusee te pay fer certain boxes received ané aleo 
refused to accept the balanee manufactured and to be manufactured 
that pleintirf has always been, and ia now, ready, able and 
willing to fully comply with its purt of the agreements anc that 
by reason of defendant's eaid refusel and ite breach of the 
agreement plaintiff hes sustained damages in the total sum of 
$995.63. (Itemized statement of damges attached ag exhibit Be) 

The agreement sued upon (admitted in evidence on the 





IACIONGM Koay dames 
| _ 5 * Tee 


‘gga of. I 0 y 8 ds | — — he 





cd antl Maa ek a aioe 

— out no —— ar — Talat ts a 

——— 35* SO SRG — 
4 @ tioigbe beixt «toexgueo at mebioe seeko. on tian cui Hi * 
as gun dewey, ook =m: Sato faooacton teniaae § parmbast, 


— ime 















‘oats one borkevot , unwed hen J * arnt: ae 
shores tuna og of an. ‘douvtoetumes sonatod 946 Sa 7 
“a ae olds sypoor re st teen qnood ayawhs wart a 

— ma Unemonne of te fg 988 Atte atone, et 
ed 20 donord otf tne, dene er htaw a Snabos tot 

hw sa tt i ab ogo noni duun aust 

| Ga retaxs os dustontts sogenab 26 remot nga: ben 
Se add ab eonubive uk bedhieted ante biee: 


* 





Re 


trial) is in the form of a written order, dated Auguat 27», 1031, 
signed by defendant and aecepted by plaintiff. Ry it plaintiff 
ie direeted te ship te defendant, at “hiengo, “250 Kh" of the 
boxes at the price of “$17.80 per Mg” the wisze of the boxes is 
stated to be "15-3/16 x 7-3/4 x 1-1/25" the color, “Sleached 
Manillag” the construction, "Glued Side Wallies” and the caliper 
(de @e» thickness of paper) “24 point." It ie alae stated: 
“Above to be taken out ae wanted in lets of not leew than 2,500 
at a times all te ve taken out in one year from sbove date or 
eceners; abeve te be printed in twe colerse” Howkere in the 
agreement is there any atatement to the effeet that the bexes are 
te be furnished in accordance with any submitted suaplee 

im ite affidavit of merite cefendant “denies that 
it refuges to pay for the merchandise 





received by it and refused te accept the balance of the merchandise 
manufsctured .* Amé defendant “alleges that it entered inte en 
arrangement with plaintiff te furniah it certain bexes in sevcordanee 
with the somple exhibited by plaintiff; thet certain of the boxes 
delivered to defendent were in accordanee with the sample; that 
thereafter slaintiff attempted te deliver boxes that were not in 
accoréance with the sample, which defendant refused to accepts 

and that the boxes se tendered for acceptance were “inferior te 

the sample and «holly useless to ¢efendant in ites business .* In 

the affidavit of merits there is no denial that, by reneson of 
Gefendant's said refusals, plaintiff sufferec the damages as alleged 
in ite etetement of claim. Furthermore, when during the trial 
defendant's attorney was asked if defendant was “questioning the 
Claimed damages or simply confining ite defense to the question 

of samples," he replied: “The defense is confined atrictly te the 
question of sample." 


4. 

eAGOL en sawyer boduh euadee qNdeixe & ko mew? ood mt Or (Latas 
Tiisaielg sk Yo .Tistlelg YW dedqrose bas dnndaetod qh bomasa 
ox? Yo "W OBS" yousnid? da gtuabmoted of qin of beduetld g: 

ae aaxed sé te Sule edd “QH aeq OGs TER" te ooiug om de pened 
budenese” yxotos sid “at\ink x dink x BENEWEE od od bodadh 
teqtios edd bem “jalfal ob24 beusd” gaatcownrenes aad *qalLbnnlt 
siudete onfa at 4  “sénkeg BG” (weueg ke auscuiaaas een et) 

- 80898 wots otek tom 10 atol mt dude oe eo noted ‘od 08 byod 

“Te edeb oveds moxt taoy emo mt ive mies 06 0f Lio ieutd a de 
of ai orpdvok “sezateo (od ab matin 06 08 ered teem 

ers woxed afi ted daetle etd ad éemniads Yas ogodé mi dmeoy . 
 «tigee boddlowue yaa dede. — — 

fas we.meb" dncdnetes seven Ie Givebl Ma VBE ME de cos) 
oaldcartonos ald set yeq OF onautet G2 Badbentthtush ue omuae duaddete 
eatinadetom ale to woimted okt sgesom oF baewtoy Sua 6) yd bewkenee 
| Rik GANS SoTsdus 31 fant aOyoLie" snshavkess be *stetdoctomam 
Rinwseces Gf wexed nindaey t1 satmest, ad Witelalg atte soomegasst 
wexed ald In Madson dons "P22 onitedy Yo bedidicns gigmne alt Mate 
Sarit {oLenen ot dite deaduetst * beta * i 
pet sen otew fads vated tovikeds of batgpntia Vikeminge weet wn ae 
geome 86, benwten salen tote Rakin: anlage: Ot, ANG 9 —* al i 


























penoLin an. atyanad wid, beget ——n W ———————— rman vom 2a — 
A⸗tad os zett uund ciwciu ganewasddset, satade to sagan de: * — 

edt wabaotsaoup" aam dain das Anh 22. dade nae yamTQeen.a! 
“Mobgaany se oF sametoh adt gniskinon gmia, xp. cegemnd, kembale 
odd of vitodida bemsineo 44 guasteh ost” sdedtgen ox Yynetquen. te 
5.5 de . ¢ Sc, medar: vee aalet quan. be me M 













On the trial two witnesses testified for plaintiff end 
three witnesses for defendant, and cach party intreduced eertain 
doewmentary evidence. So useful purpose wili be served in oute 
lining the conflicting tectimeny, which we have earefully reviewed. 
Defendant sought to maintain ite defense os alleged im ite affidawit 
of merit, namely, in eubstanec, that ite refuonla to aecept the 
tendered boxes vere juntified beenuse its agreement to purchase 
them was based upon a submitted wxample and the boxes ae tendored 
were not in accordance with, andi vere inferier to, the HARPS « 

In view of the provisions of the written agreement (wherein no 
suggestion is made of a sale by ssmple), anc of «ll the evidenee, 
the trial judge made the finding im plaintiff's faver, and we are 
unable to cay that the finding is manifestly against the weight 
of the evidenee, as defendant's counsel here aclely contend. 

Yor the first time in their rephy brief defendant's 
eounsel make compluint of the amount of the damages, as claimed 
by plaintiff and as awarded by the courte Counsel say: "hile 
we realize we eanmot take advantage om appesl for the firet time 
on the question of the allowance of domeges, we fecl that the 
damages asseceed are so Unjust and so contrary to «11 rules of 
law relating te the measure of damages that this alone would be 
eufficient te justify the court im reversing this case and remand ing 
it for a new triale" In view of defendant's sole defense as stated 
in its affidavit of merits and the statements mace by ite attorney 
on the trial a2 sbeve mentioned, the question as te the amount of 
the damoges awarted is not properly before us for considerations 
Purthermore » oe VAR AE Hee Se SraeIeee VO SEO WENNRe NO ey RO 


the damagey/are Ws unjust or exeessives 


ef the muricipal court should be affirmed 


The 
and it is so orderece . 
AP? Maite 


; Sqanlan, Pe Jeg and Sullivan, Je, concure 





eh ste 


dete: —— wot tellitaes seasendiw owe Saley ecfd a0 





horas yung dowd ban vtaatne ted 20% ewsabed iw | ‘eons 
eéuo mh bevave o@ Liv oucquug Lvteey of “eponpatve yund woh 
stowssvon yiivtoven gvad ow dots guhanténed gut did ttwos nit vata 
ttveeltts off si begeLin se oaKoTsb ‘adt Al⸗⸗atoc * — By 
att dgovna of dLeawtes ut ‘daild goonsbudun ai \udemen vedizon te 
oe stiotan et dabmnatye wt! wanoved: ‘bor thseat erty aened ‘hovebas: 
betobned a eexed sid baa ¢Lameu betd teatime * Lonel toed si a 
vo bymaa Gd 40d wobuata! orew tna wiltie sogabzeccs mt don beew 
on miexeds) daoarexgs muddiuw ad? te eeetetverq ode te wody Ml 
svonnetve ¢ ead fhe Se —** — 






86 















a dtex bee To’ tobe ylest ties at onte touts ato tot —— 
bomlake se geogamed elt To dnivole StF te wes 
— akhdy* iene Zeumrod «dios ott et beta 
ahd Gard? odd xO Lobgan Bd | —D 
tie Jats Loot ow gasgamab Ye sbuewelta ond to mmkdwomy alld 
te adie: Lis of uktdceo be the tents ov vis henteuda bey b 
"ad bkvow seme abst att sogonad td Catenom vile 09 gatdated wal 
pat bina hoo cue std? netevovey wt ——*—— — —ER 
Sotadn aa senoteb sfes o*¥aaiioies ‘te Welw wt” Mots 
— abt et St t ntincde ou a ehh sen 



















smolsersbisnes wi dy seeted wkeeenr — —E — & aaa 
touts we Pr # fea did eb onnsnva' ote tt te —* —* toad 


— 


F 
F if — 
a * 


tt 
Pe 





HAIQY We KRANSZ, 
Defendant in Lrror, 


Ve 


Lee Jeo KRYAITKOVGRL, VIVIAN BRRGK TO 
RVAITEHOVSEL, YILHSELMIWA Ce Je 
KOCH, LELAND YW, KOCH, DOROTHY : GUPERIGR COURT» 


9 
LANSKI, CHICacO TITLE & THRUST 
COMPANY, Trustee, under decument 
Noe 8980695, © HANGOS, 
CHANGES Re HATHA and THOMAS Pigih, 


5 
Plaintiffs in “rror. 270 I.A. 622 


WRe JUSTICE SULLIVAN VELIVANY THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Cook QOURTY. 


Nevember 17, 1928, Harry N. Kranez filed his bill of 
complaint to fereclose certain bonds, then past due, numbered 
1 to 12, agrregnting $5,500, part of s serial bond iseue of 
$140,000 secured by a trust deed conveying property known as 
“Loyola Monsions," 1235 Loyola avenue, Chicagoe 

The bill slleged that one John L. lukaniicch wac the 
helder and owner ef 95,500 past due bonds, all the past due 
interest coupons which were payable July 6, 1928, and which 
amounted te 34,206 and §4,200 of interest coupens maturing January 
6, 1929, «nd that he wes also the ower of additional bonds, ail 
aggregating $15,600, or more than ten per cent of the entire bend 
iesuee 

he bill further alleged that the said Lukaniteeh 
requested the trustee, Harry N. Kranea, complainant in the bil2 
filed in the Superior courtote institute forcclesure presecc ings 
and thet by the filing of the suit, the past due indebtedness 
in the amount of $9,700 beesme subordinated to the balance ef 
the vond issue hot yet due and that the title te the premises 
was verted im Le Je Kwaitkowski and Vivian Awaitkowski, twe 


SS ae eee Re RAL Bip shed 














os pate 4 
amagep ADL HERES 
, awe AOD 





——“ * neste —* nhate 
ents ———— penne 
enh Seay ott Ela yubuad ovh tang 000,09 te 
— haw stent ey * oni dat 





seh nn rl ie * : 

Seto atld et dometntgao y2erewe gee he * a 
BOnlowsoony oateeLe wt odleE samt oFerumes “olin 
a —— 


one 


of the plaintiffs in error, who were defendendants below, as joint 
tenants. Wilhelmina Ce Js Koeh, Leland W. Koch ond Dorothy Koch 
were also made parties defendant to the bill. 

Am order was entered June 21, 1929, that the bill be 
taken pre confesso by and against the abeve named defendants. 

After reference and consideration of the master’s report 
a decree of foreclosure and sale was entered by the chaneellor. 
Upon the master's report ef sale snd distribution of the preceedsy, 
a decree was entered confirming the sale of the premises and dis- 
tribution and approving same subject te the continuing lien of the 
trust deed for the remaining bonds, numbered 12 to 220, both 
inclusive, of the some issue, which were secured by the onme trust 
deede 

The master's report cf sale approved by the decree reported 
that the proceeds of the enle were sufficient to pay the ameunt due 
complainant in the foreclosure proceed ings, tegether with all costs 
and expenses and the deerce found that there was no deficiencys 

Plaintiffs im error ask for a reversal or modification 
of the deerece in this ease because of the follewing findings 
eontained thereins 

“ind it further appesring that divere other obligations 
have accrued subsequent te filing of the bill herein in connection 
with said bends 12 te 220, both inclusive, whieh have not been 
paid and that said complainant is im pouseseion of suid premises 
pursuant to terms of anid trust deed amd of an avcignment of rents 
by the owners of said premises and ia eollecting rents from said 

emises and applying net rentals against deficiencies under said 

rust deed which have acerued subsequent to the filing of the bill 
herein ané which are not included in the cecree rendered herein: 

*IT Ig, THEREYORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that 
said complainant as sueh trustee is entitled to the possession 
ef gaid premises until a11 defaulte wider said trust deed in 


gonnection with enid bonds 12 te 226, both inclusive, are remedied 
or removed.* 


it is admitted that there are no allegations im the vill 
of complaint and no evidence in the record upon which the above 
findings of the deeree can be based. 

ue Je Kwaitkowski and Vivien Kweitkowski, owners of © 


tukoh am quoked adaohascnotad sxew otw questa mt ethtemtolg ee to 
Soot viaoion tex ook «¥ hater «ost + «0 antmtedthY — yadmenes 
eLktd ed of Sembastod agidteg obem esha oxps 

od £ikd ous tad? 202i .fS ont Ne eee | 





+tolivonndls add ud texedne aa aise tet oe > te 9b 
eadseneny afd to motavdhasatd bee olay te araget * fe — 
wold ine avelavsy af To sina ede aakactines heywene. sow aenos · bs 
sds Yo sok gatunttnes ent of toetees sass ———— 
—.————— 


—— 








—3 a gu cF i j —— * tae | *2 — 
* oa i va * oes * —— 


bos vogen seroeh ens yd Savers olen toe svaqes stanton se wee aca ‘ 


— 






cub saan it? yg Ov davtel Vue exew akew.ot? Re ohuwoeng au⸗ 

cinoo iim dikw vedéspes qaymitoeveng saxaatoored oft mh dnentel 

aYenetedied om aux otsdé deste beaiet aexen8 nay dhe ae 
nottooitban — o 20k fen worwe mb aTthehans 

wptbbot? yetwedielt edt 20 sauaned: sone aids ah evroeb ae 

\ qlee wns — piven de 

ou has lg: toluades oe gigs “dads : 


ex ta si Setgats 

te tae liters mat —— — 2 

bh an eohan asisnsiotieh 3 
ivy of? 26 palkit ad? of inopreogie bau Sauron 


Sarat ae 










Je 


the equity of redemption im the foreclesed premises, Wilhelmina 
Ge Te Koch, Leland + Koch and Dorothy Koch, were on Getober 14, 
1932, allowed an order of severance in this court and were granted 
leave to prosecute this writ of error solely in their own behalf. 

Yor a determination of this proceeding it will be 
unnecessary to consider the deeree as it affected the other defend- 
ants nemed therein. 

The defendant owners of the equity of redemption contend 
that by the decree they were unlawfully deprived of the possession 
of the foreclosed premises and of the rents and profits therefrom 
during the fifteen month redemption pertlod. 

The indebtedness, which was the subject matter of the 
partial forecloeure in question, wac extinguished by the sale. 
Inasmuch as that indebtedness waa fully aatiefied and there was 
no deficiency, neither the owners of the subordinated lien bonda, 
whieh by their subordination became in effect a second mortgage, 
and whieh were the subject matter of the fereclosure preceed ings, 
nor the purehaser at the sale mor the trustee ner any other person 
acting fer or in behalf of cither of them could deprive the defend- 
ant owners of the equity of redemption of possession of the fore- 
closed premises and of the rents and profits therefrom during the 
redemption period. 

Our attention is directed te many cases supporting 
the above doctrine. Ye agree that it is sound law and it is 
therefore ummecessary to refer to those cases as they have no 
application te the facts or law pertinent to the issues involved 
here. 

Tt is eontended that the owner of the equity of 
redemption is entitled te rents during the redemption period 
even against the prior mortgagee and cite Stevens v. Hacfield, 
178 Ill. 532. This case properly held that the ower of the. 


wot — st — — ee ee 


ocew ton tenet Vid ala 





«tiated rrp chads at Uietoe’ cocay to — 


he Libw $f watheovorg abt to wettentavsded «ee 
ohbeteb uwitto ase Gedoottn Vi aa tenon odd xobLanme oF * 





motes molten sez tw Ysinos oe le wrecwo debited —* wi, weak 
olen cholo ubhigmenot sine 
‘ahd De ter iam foutaen od pew tolitw oem Foe — 
oeles oft wh Suslelingel sie aan woh seu nt * Ss 
“use weed sen boM alien ULL ase snombotdebnl Halt 
ams OLE todan beodue oitd R aebitee ae a0 —* t 
— *— oumeleexe? wr te xetfow sie iat —— 


















ee wt teu wat ones wt — int wear * ial 





oie 


equity of redemption was eutitied to the rents during the redemption 
period because the owner of the first mortgage had taken no stens 
te enforee his rightee 

The trustee in this case, according te the evidence, 
originally took possession of the premises and collected the rents 
under an assignment of rents to him by the owners of the equity of 
redemption for the purpose of obviating the necessity ef the 
appointment of a reeeiver. This voluntary assignment executed 
by the owners of the equity ef recemption, constituted « waiver 
of the demand for performance by the trustee as previded for in 
article 9 of the trust deed, which is sc follows: 

“In ense of default (a) in the payment ef prineipal of 
amy bond (b) in the payment of interest on any bond, and such 
28 continuing for thirty deyxa, or (¢) in the due observanee 

or performance of any other covenants or conditions required in the 
trust dee@ , euch default continuing for thirty days efter demand 
for periormanee by the Trustee, or by the holder or helders of 
one or more of the bends then outstanding then and im every such 
eage the trustee may enter initio anc take peeceenion of the 
mortgaged property with or witheut ferce, * * * collect rents 
and lease snid premises in such pore¢ls and for guch times as 
the Trustee may deem proper. * * ** 

Upon the entry of the decree approving the sale under 
the foreclosure and the distribution of the preeeeds, the trustee 
had performed all duties owing from tim to the owner of the 
subordinated lien bonds covered by the truct deed. That incebted- 
ness was extinguished. But the Trustee in possession alse owed 
a duty to the owners of 911 the other prier lien bonds. 

Paregraph 4 of article 16 ef the trust deed provided 
as follows: 

"Im case of any foreclecure sale of the mortgaged 

property, the —— gums of all temds hereby secured, if 
not viously due, shall immediately thereupon become due and 
payable, anything in seid, bonds or in this Indenture te the 
contrary notwithstanding .® 

Aeting under thie and other provisions of the trust 
deed, the trustee in possession not only hac the legal right to 


retain possession of the mortgaged property and eclicet the 


neliguehes tal’ your ateen od of taldldes aan sobtgqemdos Re yigpe 
agate on manlst bout ogmpduan fact: ont ke rome wAld, w pond bats 
fia ) vane aadtoss abel op 
- 9Gaiehive ors at BRibsocen youee wind ut sedeued aG * 
afnox oie iwéeniloe bas soatmeny ead Io aoinannneg deod —2 
eo wings et to amore alt Yo etal ot â— — 
ead to ytieweosn oft gukéaivde te evequag, ons. mex a 
 tesvoon® geemapicar ysodslov eit? steviooer — ne dmectatonge 
t0viaw 2 bedwdivscon ysoligamaex to qiimpe slé ko eteawe, odd, 
 fi-set bobivea ee eetenit. salt 106 omememnioneg meh Ream ‘alt te 
tavellok an eh tinicer yooh gaat ett to @ eketdas 


te daqionivg ta dasegeq ate mi mi Yo ansn ah 
down brs thay ied — Yo sigs 201 gndurt 


aenrTisadD oie me. 59 gByar * 
ond ak betinpes anoldisnon x0 weaves — 





















* — * —— ont —J ores —9— reg t 
— te so lagoaacg edad na eda ime Yen 2 et ise RE 
‘Eel? Hom sot bal ehoozoa gen Rb aoe sellin a 


aabm, ates, — mavens Henveh ont 30 2tee otal, ak: wees 
metered aula suboooorg odd 2e seAdsditseld ons bee omumekoores add 
eas io cemee odd af mit moxt golwe eolind Lio bemsotzeg fed 

" be wade whine ae . 7 
— Soh Pn. Sin Sadek A 
bebkvowy bead touxt ad? Xe O5 efeks RE 1 a 

















one st ar Ser tanto 
— at —— —* — — 
turd at 2 aatetrany mato. ue otad mim 2et404. 
of Atal Lagat of? vad afoo son mptaaoneog at ond — * 
watt ——— hae yax0qosg —— att 10 motos — * ie 





~5< 


rents therefrom for and in behalf of the other prior lien bond- 
holders, but he would have been recreant to his trust if he had 
not dome 60 

In Altschuler v. Sandelman, 264 Ille Appe 106, we held 
that the trustee in possession is entitled te retain possession 
under the trust deed by its contractual provisions, while any 
defaults exist thereunder, and his interest cannot be adversely 
affected by the junior lien proceedings. This doctrine was 
supported by a mumber of casex cited thereine 

Sefendants contend that nowhere in the trust deed is 
the trustee or any bondholéer authorized or permitted to foreclose 
a part of a bond issue. That partial foreclosures are permitted 
under our law admits of no argument. The case of the Central 
Trust Coe ve Calumet Coe, 260 ilie Appe 410, and cases cited 
therein are conclusive om that proposition. 

in Conowners Bond ang Mortgeve Com: et ale 
He Sudim,y 266 Ille Appe 141, thie court held “aside from its 
eontract right under the trust decd and, solely by virtue of ites 
statue ae a first mortgagee, the latier, under the Illinois law, 
beesme the owner of the property after condition broken, subject 
omly to an equity of redemption and as such owner wae entitled 
to the physical possession of snme.* 

From and after the entry of the decree confirming the 
master's sale and distribution of the proceeds of the sale, the 
trustee's possession of the premises was solely in the interest 
and behalf of the owners of the other prior lien bonds 12 to 220, 
both inclusive. The owners ef the equity of redemption had 
defaulted and permitted the property to be foreclosed and sold, 
and therefore, under the terms of the trust deed the trustec was 
rightfully im possession. It was his duty te remain in 





2454 
er, 








"shared moll welaq caslde off ko Vintied al bas ¥o% mottos 
‘bor al td dades ch OF daawsior mond ovad ioe a hit «Weoitad 
* ‘end tea 
aed ow gO0L ead offT bOR gnamfohint av totminysts at is 
dolesvuaog ‘uheded of widites ul soteudansg =e ‘wodiarss ete dest 
“tte ektdw qundlelveny Kasiosttnos ott yo ‘boot dard tt —— 
vtowner — — ina — inet t tat —* — — ——— 




















ootaoren —EEI yan 0 sedaud J— 
ikon ote — tat * bod @ 20 due 
















“tents abo bea ons oda T oa rs itt me o.AY.8 2 ES 
, eae | sae 8 * —* fi * ere vets 


et to ewbehy ws veto tna ‘bok eid sl Wal ) 
amine aber! £0 ‘wold robes totdak at soogeperéa decid a 6a obtadd 
toekdive sitekoud molatbnos sik yesogweR ond Yo votme and tmaoed 
bokdtine saw contre ‘gs OLS geo he “Ge inne al ot vine 
omen te ‘oebusbeaoy festew 
oul garkerxt hop eenoot oath ‘te ‘grime a? xod'te hele — ont 
ntld geian afd Yo aboonong odd te mplevdicdnts bas Olen exe 
teomint eds mt yLsiow waw ase tmwny ads te nodesnenog —* —R 
1988 08 ek abaod nett welsg, xnido wuld ‘0. 0 ae 
‘batt aot deme hon 0 yiwps ere ‘to erromre vet 
ables dem dpeoloo tok of oF Vi roqong oxtt — * 
sw oosawsd aid doab taust, nts ts corked bay dl ‘te brass porgtored? a, 





















—— "he eee ie 
“hed Suatsd 


ie atl ewes baE a 4 * a 


homes of Maud wt wa OE motonsaee ah 


i. Sater — 3 


ee a ———— 


sa Me Tee NO Se eA 
* — — aa ele 
‘ ne : ae * 





SI 4S eee 


ee ee ee ee 


~€e 


possest Lome 

The last two paragraphs of the decree ag set forth 
pupra added nothing to the richte and powers of the trustee. 
The decree confirmed in the trustee no rights and povers that 
were not slready veeted in him by reason of the trust deed and 
the law of the “tate of Tllineis. Neither did the deeree divest 
er deprive the ¢ofendante of any rights. The rights ef 11 
parties to this proseeding are exactly the aame a» if the two 
Paragraphs of the ¢eeree complained of had not been incer porated 
in the deeree. Therefore, that part of the ¢eeree must he 
considered as surplusage and the deeree of the Superier eourt 


in affirmed. 
ABPILEEDe 


Searilan, Ps Joy and Gridley, Jo, comers 


ont re Foanoe yt at. nt bots 


Hi 


Paes — 


on ath eed ton 


eRe! 


PE ot 


. 
ye 
Sep LS 


ee 
aude v9 








j 4, 
36043 
OHICAGO REALTY SHARES, TiiCe, ) 
a@ corporation, } 


Plaintiff in irror, 
BRRGR TO MUNICIPAL 
ve 
Count OF CHICAGO. 


FRANK T. JORDAN, | 
Defendant in frror. o'7 © 1A 623 
Mi. JUSTICR SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


September 22, 1931, plaintiff obteined a judgment for 
$1665.28 by confession on three notes for £497.15 each given 
Piaintiff by defendant. September 25, 1931, defendant filed 
his appearanee and petitioned the court to vaeate the judgment 
and moved that his petition to vacate etend as affidavit of 
weritse 

The court ordered that defendant's petition te vacate 
wtand aa affidavit of merits and the judgment was ordered to 
shank ae security. The couse «2s tried before a jury «hich 
returned «a verdict favorable to defendant and judgment of 
nil capiagt wie entered upon the verdict. 

The undisputed evidence in the record proved that 
the three notes, each for 9497013, and dated May 15, 1931, and 
due in thirty, sixty and ninety days, respectively, were 
executed and delivered by defendant to plaintiff in payment 
of past due rent, at the rate of $239.56 a month, for seven - 
months ending “ey 31, 19351, lees an allowance or discount of 
15%, on an apartment used and ceeupied by defendant im building 
owned by plaintiff at 210 East Pearson street, Chicago. 

The substanee of defendant's petition to vacate judgment 
and for leave te defend was that there wes me consideration fer 


sOnsUENE WO TAVIS 


are hE OVS) maarn 


A ote ear zo wimige war orate, —X 









y SER * gk i 5 


osasey of midi go a'Sanbawtod ead hexoine uses — Mp 
ef beseisa raw drearghat, odd deta atin te sivoni yaa | ae sa. ae 





free 9 LbCL att 9* *o⸗ beg — — set — 3 






—“ ai tnabeetes yw botqsoas ‘bun beaw — fe 
* * ES ¥ 
sag cokmo —— 


“Ze 


the execution of the notes sued on. Defeniant sought to prove 
that when the notes in question were delivered, they were delivered 
on account of whatever rents, if any, should on an accounting 
between the parties appear te be due to plaintiff from defendants 
that, notwithstanding the fact thet they were unconditional in 
terme, they were delivered conditionally on such accounting being 
made from Januory, 1928, to May 15, 1921, the date of neten, to 
determine whether anything was due plaintiff from defendant on an 
agreement alleged by defendant to have been made with plaintiff, 
which provided that defendant was not to pay any more rent than 
any other tenant in the building. 

Defendant testifying im his ow behalf attempted and 
offered to preve the purported conditional delivery ef the notes 
in question, and objection to his attempt and offer was sustained 
by the trial court. 

Thereafter, on surrebuttal and without objection, 
defendant was permitted to present toe the jury substantially 
all of the matters relied on by him to show conditional execution 
and delivery of the notese 

Givines due consiceration te 211 evidence offered, 
presented by woy of hearsay, or etherwiee appearing in the reeord 
of the trial of thie case, whether competent or incompetent, and 
whether reecived with or without objeetion ef counsel, we must 
conclude that in the present state of this recerd we oun find no 
evidence which indicates or tends te indicate with what person 
or persons, with or without authority toe act for plaintiff, or 
under what conditions or circumstances, or at what time or place, 
any agreement binding im law was made fer the cenditioneal 
execution and delivery of the notes in question. 

Thie record is net in such shape that the rights of 


evexq 04 #igyen énabue red . +s » hres aaden ond ne moteuosns a 
baroviLed een wees sboxerd ten exew wottssip me anton one agri dint 


* ie. 


gaivasecse an sy blveds «yun u enden sored cite te tausoon fm 


Giachas te? sux? —XRXR ot oh o¢ ed: angie wed imt oxid sone 
Ri Lemetsivnvom osow yods todd doa ont aechimad od iwton « tats 
guied gat mares vs gas 80 eLinnotstdaos beneviteb —X ‘gone nats 
— o eanion ‘te iad GAI gZCOL ate —* ad oSSGL alee’ marek elon 
r ~~ to sackets moet tisntadg eub saw yatta yn seest vela elmied as 
etiisnialy Adie obaa aeed ova 63 trobae tel yt hegelin taomonrge 
west duet exes vin xeg od don gar snabaotos deat Sebiverg sie iste 
e atl Shad oats at Srapwea soe * 
‘am —* — m0 att at patkchi dees ‘dco ta mesic: 
acon ead te erovhLots Lowe! 4ibm0~ yrreauua oat evox 08 howto 
bomtedaus a notte hit tquodé s aid oe wolvosyde tes erolsaouy at 
e088. tense sal we 
_ gtoltenkdo tuaddiw bus Lasdudertue me vwortaoredtt — — 
wiiat seatadon cot, aa od temnore 03 bode darvg saw snodnereh 
Gi Sie eRS fonpie tones weal us tebe @ no neko anvas eda Xo n> 
“saoton edi t uated be " 
sbemetie seaubive Ike 69 netdexsbianos oud yatved 
vrovon eid at gitxaogge oatwsodto ne ggueised tO wer Wd betasaes 
bs: qfmodeqnoon! xo snodequoo — — alte o Latee ond te | 
gone ow efonsien ve mertookde auen· n x ashe bevtooer — 
om Hatt nao ow buocet ets to state sang ont at ‘toss vtuitouee 
sro91 94 taste 23 otaptint of abmed 10 — sods oom whys : 
+0 abil taiotg 40% toa oe witeodive dwodlt tw @ Laatiell — 
avontg xo omits seus 4X0 yeoomntanworte xo auoksthnes nde cebu 


on et — att ay ie 4 

damel kono oot so haa naw ak, at ant batd teomeomen we 9 
es Be 4 LE A ANS i — —9 

— eoup mb goten oat Yo — —V — — 


om — wid Said ↄg⸗aia Mowe mt tow at 




















nits la ye a Lad 


ojo 


the parties may be fairly and properly determined; therefore 
the judgment of nil eapiat entered on the verdict of the 
jury is reversed and the cause remanded. 

REVERSED AND REMAND De 


Seamlans Pe Jes and Gridley, Jo, concurs 


mere we 






















a eee ee ee 


Loxoy ait mo bemséne $s 
—— re "cae Mp 





tarccy RL eth wrpectie eee 





2 Leet fi seers 

Ce won brur eiſ e — tsaen bay: 

Oo gawdinn. ta RA wee mers 4 aid * ae GORE 4 

Sh Aw hashewked Siees "ut Sioiy Sais meow’ — * vale 
atiereigiy air wea oe: ere ae ee wh # 

MRS KOS vera,” Bic ee oo yen. ‘<n — 

| — 


—— Bint ad — cae ef “ti * * F ‘ 


agistgoaue Lanes ———— weg * ais 


——— 


——— —2 


cigars tea seunwnt i) ——— — rag dea 
duaies 96 — R 2 wareonbee — x6 dade 
Oho * 


dine ed ra ew —— we * en sf 


ee 







2 — $8, Lb * tee, * — 
Gach y Saebt fa me 9) Se Beal 


> tia, "Wa i: — 


—— * 


me: tots, wed data —⸗ en 








36174 


— 


ABE BLLIS and HAROLD ELLIS, 
DOING BUSTIVESS AS HAMLIN 
PARKEVAY GARAGE, for the use 
of HENNY PRALMAE, 

Appellant s⸗ APPEAL VWAOM BUMICIPAL 


v. COURT OF CHICAGO, 


a corporations — 270 1.A. 623° 


Appellee. 


ee ee 


WRe JUSTICE SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THES COURT. 


In a triel before the court without a jury, the 
plaintiffs, be EZllis and Hareld ©llies, icing business as the 
Hanlin Parkway Garage, for the use of Henry Perlman, obtained 
a finding and judgment againat the Liberty Trust & Savings 
Bank, a corporation, garnishee, for 15041. Plaintiffs’ 
appeal followed. 

December 31, 1951, Henry Perlman recovered « judgnent 
by confession in the Municipal court agsinst Abe Silis end 
Herold Ellis, doing business as the Namlin Parkway Garage for 
$815. Om the same day after an execution had been returned 
"no property found’ a garnishment affidavit wae filed and 
garnishee summons tasued against the Liberty Trust & Savings 
Bank as garnishee. The writ was served on the garnishee 
December 31, 1931, and direeted garnishee to answer as to 
rights, ereditse, choses in action, effects, estates, property 
or money in its hands belonging to Abe Ellis and Harold Sllin, 
deing business as the Hanlin Parkway Garage. ‘here is some 
Question raised as to when the answer of the bank was filed, 
but the record shews it te have been filed Pebruary 1, 1922. 
However, we are chiefly concerned with the period from December se 7 


* * 
*— * 
omy 4 — Cara nie Zz i PAE aH Ree rs — 
— — tis SR (oh 86* —DD—— fet Sa ga’ ae SGA BRR AE RRR age 
- a pa $ 4 ay 
iid —X SUNDAE RNA —J 
3— 
ne * t i ae — Ee CR) Bhi 
ayf ‘ 3 4 vi y % a, Fe ' ig, , Pe Fa Niel ~ Ait i * heen ts ra —2— amie be 
* * “AA, * ä 4 
Tih = * * 
el ’ 
aa ‘ i . rs Padi Oy 


‘id 108 — YAVRRAS 


SAaIoIawm moms gama tC adeadinesh. 
eHOASTHS TC TAVOD «? 

“ESO. .ATOYS | — 
»THUVOO AUT vO WOTKIGO OWT CERIVILI AVEC AOU TEU’ «mt 1h 
edt .yxui, 8 tuetdlo Junge od? ovoted Lake? 2 al ad 
et oo auemtane yrtod gatL£S Stowall bao elie ods gattitntahy 
boniside qtamkxel yrmel te sax odd set ysgeted yowdzet atLngii, 
spuive 4 gauxT yirodii odd santaga soeoghul dae yotbald « 
fatttomias £028 xo% gondaderey *— Aunti 
onoc dut © betevesex —2 erst ghOHE Q hk <i 
Ries eh OG Sombsye seveo Seqtotaws of? at ——— 
16% egoxe Yavaite® altima ad? eo avomtawd gated eabiit bkoxal 
hewtuter need had notiseexe ns reste yob suas odd mo rey 
bas biti eaw dhynbitte éromialovag @ *bewot —E on" 
agetva? & gosvT ysrodid sd? soakags seveat enamue sodelotag 
eon iniay edd mo bevses saw thaw off .sertalniey a dane 
O/ as toweas of sedeteten bedoorld dew gLEOL gt redeeoet 
ytioaewg geotatas ,atestie esetten ak ponete gadihets sedcigts 
weilit pkexsl bae ahiSk edi 99 yabpaoted wbuet et mt yomom to 
amma ek exo? sopoted Yartia alinali add os anentaud wate : 
eit? caw Anag site te rowan od? acy Of s0 bowtor | | ho 
aet gf YrwTaoT bOLIT med ove oF $4 awode ouoss i 
te sodas oo wort ob t04 ost Mdiw bentoones Vitelte one on a 3 ee 






“20 


te January 11, 1952. The bank avewered thet at the time of the 
service of the writ end at all times sinee and up te am including 
the date of the anewer, it was indebted to the principal defendant 
for $15.41, which defendant head on deposit with garnishee bank in 
® checking account, and thet it had no moneys, ete+, owned by or 
due to the defendant, except the $15.41 im its possession at the 
time of the service of writ or «at any time sinoe then up to the 
date it filed its answer. 

It is undigputed that the garnichee bank ¢id not have 
any money in its possession in any account im the nome of ‘be 
Ellis, Hareld “lis, Hamlin Parkway Garage, or Abe Fllis ond 
Harold “llis, doing business as Hamlin Porkewxy Garage, at the 
time of the service of the writ or st any time up to the filing 
of the anewer. 

it developed on the hearing that the bank cid have a 
checking account in the name of lle He Ellis and, inasmuch as no 
question was raised as to identification of the aecount efter it 
was located, and the plaintiff contended that H. He Sllis was in 
fact Harold Silis, we must conclude that H. He Sliia and Horeld 
Ellia, the principal defendant, were one and the same persone 

Briefe and arguments on both sides discussed at length 
the Municipal court rule, which provides fer an incorsement on the 
copy of the writ left with garnishee of the business of the 
principal é«fendent, his business and residence address so far as 
kMOWM, as “ell ac the date and amount ef judgment and costs te 
Gate. <A eopy of the writ was not offered in evidence. The 
original writ, however, showed no such indorsement and the only 
evidenee in the record as to the presence or absence of the 
required indorsement was the testimony of 4. Hse Miller, who was 
assistant trust officer of the bank, te the effect that that 


eid % outs 02 20 dass boxownne daed eT SE0L gL yxaunel oF 
griousont ime od qu dus somte gents Lis ta bus gitw wt? to eatyren 
gnedas'se Laxtenttg edd of heddebui aow $2 gtowame oft to oted edd 
Ri Mnad sedateray dtiw staoqes wo bast JenBenked ab tebe 1Ad. dAd sat 
26 Yt heme ysots qayemem on bed 32 docs wna agmusuon vations @ 
ed 20 notancnney att mi £20826 eft, dqnexe gtuabasteh esd 0 onb 
est e% qt mend eomta omits ye ga co dtuw te ealvxee sold to mts 
vvna an at oatta aa stad 

phat Yon bth Aind ‘eelbatoeay nts sald tetpeioes eh Gee 
a⸗ to ome acl? ol arnooda wie at moiavenaog aft at yonom Ye 

bes —X edA te .ayRe%ed wrutas ‘meh Sol e@hees alon wate 


eit Sy yogdxat towtae mi ieeti a 


Oe ee ee 8 

a eat SE sabe ek till Noche atta ential —— 
om as Mointsnn? gbae o2L6K oH al 20 east ofd-at temeoon — 
$i 98a faupens od Ro notdeolttémen! of as boolot saw muhtamip 
tik oow atLL% 6X «tl dual? RohtetmoD TritHtaly est dna ydodavok ane 
Akouell hwo GhLId oM si auld whecenws dems ow satis bLoide den? 








sogrog onne zein oxo eum gonabueted Lagronteg ete yinthte 


Atgme ¢o beeswoalh nobis died ao 8 chon ort acai 
ot? wo éeeematednt na wet aohlvor awhetw goles devas 





———— 


aa ——— 
ot atuoo dee stoma buy 26 Saweme kia tab eld ae Lise eo iymmonel 
‘gi? seonebive ni deta Te ton aaw tien ead Yeger A. ede 
wiste ont tne Saomoerobnt sown 4 beget damage 








- ald To coteeds TO somEeTE oe OF ae Dadoet odd M2 eoNDDAVe 


saw Ot gTOLLM GH of ke Ymmitest eff aor Inemmenods 
—— —————— J 


ad Bs 
AY: bis 





te silt sre ane 









ose 


information was not on the face of the summons received by the 
bank. 

Mr. Miller, the only witness in the cases, also testified 
that when the writ was served on the bank he reod it and it named 
Abe 2llis and Harold “llis as the principal defendants that he went 
te the bank vault ami eearehed for any possible account in the name 
of Abe Ellis, Harold 2llis or the Nemlin Parkway Goreges that he 
found ne account im any of these nameeg that he went through the 
savings accounts end through the renl eetate leans with the seme 
requits that December 31, 1951, he ‘phone: the office of the attorney 
for the beneficial plaintiff and wee told that he was out of towns 
that he called the same attorney several times later upon hie return 
and told him that, if the bank had any euch account and more infor- 
mation we furnished, he would be glad te rum it downs that he could 
net find anything end was willing te give any ascietance he could 
that he persisted in asking the same attorney for further information 
to assist him im locking up possible accounts of the principal 
defendants; thet finally on the Sth er 9th (presumably of January) 
the attorney gave him the address of Harold “llis ae 3932 Van Burg 
streets that finally (did not atate when) he looked through the 
bank files and finally (did not state when) found that this fellew 
(presumably He He Ellis) Lived on Van Buren atreet; that he got in 
toueh (he did not state when) with the customer (presumably He He 
Ellis), prepared on onower and sent it to the bank's attorney for 
filing. 

The evidence is confusing and indefinite as to just how 
much money was in the hamds ef the bank belonging to He He “llis, 
later discovered to be one and the same person with Harold Tillis, 
principal defendant, from the time of the service of the writ 
until the anewer was filed, but im amy event it appears, not 
from the record but from the briefs and additional abstract, 


odd yd bevieper stosmme add to seat ott me fem aan oI ! fs 





pebataees ¢ ois esad oa ms — ae eae — 


houses #1 bas 22 haox oa aed os oe boveoe gow dew add made dats 


inow ont toda tadaabno tes Logtont au oats an elke borat bee antis vai 
emia std J ———— aiding we sot badosans oe ‘stuay nad ost 8 


the i 


ext gasket tegered yomixat sab Laos edd 20 “GALE beosalt “soLLE 06, Yo 
eid Agwould gnew of gadd geoman saails * us a tmooon om — * 
aoe ond sitiw onsek etasas kaon os aaueau⸗ baa stevens — 
wWradeas oda te ovr a⸗ oats vostesig' ont 400k fe ‘todas fad) ¢4kunor 


wes & rei “SNe 


qireod % $40 aew oat dont Shoe now bie mi⸗si⸗ia Later rowed vrs x02 


sean tot ata ogy xsd ast? — —R mes. od helion 4 as 
Wes ee # Fy, 
—J—— orem bes sawoone won ve ba Mead edd ua * ‘aia’ nine. 






aS Dean tosis 
Logout ya ota te atnwens eisieneg w gainers a ‘mid = et 


-(rensumt xe desswa0) ase "0 ase odd Ko at * jedanbasted 
eons * eae ne ALLb bhorah * —— oe mtd ove — Saale an 
eds. Kquord’ dedaed ox laeue ogeea ton ‘bib} ‘elteni2 sats ost toate iden ite 
walter ‘ahs ⸗ bet ‘Crenste od ats pi 2 ileal? | Pn — : i ; 3 ; 
atte od tadd tdsonte mora me mo tov (eAtit ot ‘sH edesunog) 
wt — — a don ius comets a chert 


Me 345 ea Egy AG — 
























eatiiN si 6H 0 yetuuoLed aad sat Yo wimad Gils BE gee yonom ie 

eWXEEE Mfwrait a/R mowing Guin ono hein “ame be Od boxer vedi ile 

dw utd Yo wokvide “tilt teenie dats srt Hint | 
fee guteegen St tmove vate Wk vind YboLEt wait kom *3 

| gdeotéuda Keno rots tine etoktd odd moet jue ite 


4 


thet there wae more than suffieient to pay the beneficial plain- 
tiff the full amount of his judgment if the judgment debtor had 
rot been permitted to reduce the amount on deposit.e 

it did not appear in evidenee, but the briefs of plain- 
tiff and garnishee, as well ax the additional abstract, disclose 
that January ll, 1952, the garnishee bank permitted the judgaent 
debtor te withdraw from his account by cheek $1276035, leaving in 
his checking account with the bank a balance ef $1541le 

The plaintif? first contends that the garnishee was 
negligent and acted in disregard of the rights ef the plaintiff 
in failing to iocnte and discover the secoumt of He He Ellis 
ag the mon¢cy and property of Hareld “Lilia, the judgment debter. 

in passing on a case where wm judgment debtor's name 
was Joe Bantuan and garnishee bank permitted payment toa a ered iter 


whove name was ies Fenton this court held im Hantwan v. the 
249 Jile Appe 372,_ 3798 


“after a careful consideration of many of the euthorities 
bearing on the subject, we have reached the conclusion that the 
following is a cerreect statement of the law appliceble to the present 
contention: A writ er summons in garnishment must contain an 
accurate deseription as to the name of the principal defendant or 
err to whem the garmichee ia indebted but ‘the garnishee becomes 

dable to hold the property subject to the process where he has 
actual knowledge of the identity of the principal defendant though 
the latter's name is not correctly given or has reason to suppose 
the proceedings are intended te be against his ereditor.' (28 Os Je 
r) * 


And im the same opinion the court continuing om page 541 held: 


“Im the inetant case it is not disputed that the vrit 
gid not designate with aecuraey and<clearness the person to whom 
the garnishee was indebted, and the plaintiff hed the burden of 
proving that the garmishee had actual knowledge of the identity 
of the principal Sefantinse or head reseon to suppose that the 
garnishee proceedings were intended to be —* ite creditor. 

In our judgment, plaintiff had failed im this regard. The burden 
was upon the beneficial 4g ad to show that the — acted 


in * faith (fant nels ieffner, 52 tlle 222; Henness 
- Mary's Keademys 171 Tile sppe 470, 472), Oe 


—* ending to show that the defendant 
ak ae sheds tor is there. Be I that the garnichee had actual 
knovledge of the —— of principal defendant, nor are there 
aufficient facts and circumstances to warrant a finding thet the 
éefendant bank hed reason to suppose that the garnishee th etait 
were intended to be against Joe Handman.* 













theaig tateitensd vit yoy ob temtelituw need exe chew beoHe Tadd 
Sac totded snomabst, od Th suemmtol ard to tewome Link oct ERE 
stigoqged mo sewome als eoebor oF — awed fom 

ontal; te etel<é wht dud jeomobive wl sseaqe tom bio 3t - | 
swoiselh ytoandeds Lometeibhe od? se Liew os qeerlalaney: bens vite 
domepihet ote beselaxeq dnad vetelwnmn tte eR8OL glk veawnal sade 
wk yatvest 4he8TSLG xovsto yd dewovon sit work wwthishw os rordeb 
I2i) to soaaled 2 dnad eds atte — 
gow sutltorsoe sald tele cbmodewo Gesd? Ttisadaly 2ah © 3 
 Yobdwtale one to sdipix edge te oxagetetd wt Seder — 
(@h£t ol ok De sieves ed oompveosss Sum staset of eugua at 
steddss trompdat, off gaiik’ blows Te eimeqesg bine einen ertd ibe 
ome wtuoddoh sasagivt a ovedw de00 o Go gehaseg BE 
tedtbere a 02) ammiryey but 2tareq: suas vaistreoy ue famine ean 
ptt sw emeedt wh bed game aide camsbae ogh aie oni ouedtn . 
OTE gSTE vqqa ofS1 Ode — — fa 


—— — — 
Swveds tuabaotes Lagionbsy old Yo Jetns odd te — — 
nea) m — 
4 rewmehanen wld Jeaiega oe of Mamayent te agnl 





ohiay a3? tasttd twduqait fom ef 2! sane 
mote of aeexoqg edt seomiselos bun diiw rk seb tom bie 
to sebuud of? ban TIES —* onle 
as aa? to ge vou 


he — mo 5 


—J wa fn 
* > ee ry ah 









aghivd off eh X 
sata darts dod? wore of Yihtmiaig J 
a | otk Qe 
SYS -OVe 


So im this ease where the person to whom the garnishee 
was indebted was not designated vith accuracy and clearness, 
where the judgment debtor's mame was Harold Sillis, and the 
garnishee benk's cre¢iter wae He lie Miliag the plaintiff had 
the burden of proving that the garnishee had netual knowledge 
of the identity of the prinelpal defendants er kac reagen te 
suppese that the garniahse proeesdiangs were intended to be 
against its ercditer, H. %e Blifae The burden was om the 
plaintiff’ to show that the garnishee acted in bed faith. This 
the plnintiff failed to dee There ie no evicence im the cease 
tending te ghow thet the bank ce acted. The «videnee in the 
record ts te the effect that the garnishee bunk, unable to 
find accounts ef the principal cefendante, aa named in the writs 
used ail reauénable Giligence in en¢envoring to leeate the 
‘ aecount the plaintiff’ sought te reach. 

Yee plaintiff further contends that regardless ef the 
merita of ite first esnteution the judgnent of the micipal 
eourt should be reverevd and judgment entered mere fer 9315, 
the fvll asouct of ita original judgment, on the grounds that 
even though garnishee could not and did net lecate the socount 
in question upon the service of the writ or for acveral days 
thereafter, 1% cid fimally locate and digeaver an account of 
the principal defendant, Harelé SLlie, under the same and style 
of He Be Ellie, and thet at the time of such diseovery there 
was more than sufficient money in the 2zccaunt to cover the 
eriginal judgeent. The plisintiff ia correct in this contention 
if it waa shoen by the evidence that at the time of the discavery 
ef the account there were funds in the hands ef the gornishee 
belonging toe the judgment erediter. 

fo suppert this contention we have to icek ta the 
@vidence of Mr. Miller solely. We have sorutinised his 





ies vets 


sai mr wt mei ls i with mt 





wah? Seem wei LE Bosal un Gites “iced — 
— ' —— sae — * — aan — —— Fe 
— weenet bat xo cackkotel Lagloal sy aa" Oe — ee 

gd @2 habuodal’ sabe aga basodee” — * heed sate seals 
odd "ts wow abbind ott ” sabtait ie”, eo 8b2 Hii 
whit “HbR fo at Gobna boda “sdt ad sii 
— au sonabive a beta 6 ea | ine | tm 
thor oat 2 oes ae vena bob — * eh ae 

































Seay poe ic. tats ; od semrooee * Suis ed 
j — — ee oe awk 


— * anenere — — pew nds te dome, 
——— Neca Mate * 
aga, Loxoven. seh. %6, dew. edd te ' —— apg ** 


ts , at te a oy aa q Bi 
| lt Of Hoek 08 aven ww motonnsnon, wie — 


+e 


testimony closely, and it disclowes that this sccount was 
lecated finally but does not indicate with that definitencss 
and certainty that the law requires when the discovery was 
made or if it was made before or after the garnishee permitted 
the prineipal defendant to withdrew hie money from the checking 
aecount. The witness wag not properly interregated, questions 
that were pertinent and material were mot asked and the witneos 
was not required to make such anewers ae would clarify the 
igaues. It ie eur opinion that on thie reeord the iseucs 
cannot be fairly and properly decided, and the cnwe should 
be retried. | 
Yor the rengons etal ed the judgment of the Municipal 

eourt is reversed and the cause remanded. 

REVERGED AMD REMANDED» 


Seanlans Pe Jey and Gridley, Jes conoure 





—— 


—8 

vale & 
— 

— 


36216 —— fh ie 
* — at ; & a 
⸗ 
MmaAnx SCHOFIELD, i ) 
Appellee, 

Ve ) APPEAL PROM MUNICIPAL 
COSMOPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COURT OF CHICAGO. 
COecs a corporation, 

Appellant. 


cy —— pre 2 
#é6U i.A. 6297 
MR. JUSTICH SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINTON OF THY COURT. 


In a trial before the court without e@ jury the plain- 
tiff obtained a finding and judgment June 1, 1932, against the 
Cosmopolitan Life Imsuranece Company (hereinafter exlled the 
Consolidated Company), for $791.16. This appexl followed. 

Theretofere on November 25, 1931, the plaintiff, who 
is an attorney at law, had obteined a judgment by confession 
for $771.36 againet the Sheridan Life Imeurance Company (herein- 
after called the Sheridan Coe or constituent company), on its 
note dated May 20, 1931, payable November 20, 1931, with interest 
at 6%. The note was executed by the “Sheridan Coe, a corporation, 
by Harrison Parker, president, and ve Je Lifka, secretary, and 
the plaintiff claims that it wes given to him as security for 
§700, due and owing him for services rendered to the Sheridan 
Coe about a year previous te the execution of the note. This 
judgment included attorney's fees anc interest. 

May 18, 1931, the stockholders of the Sheridan Coe 
and the Consolidated Company passed resolutions adopting a 
eonavlidation and reinsurance contract, which by ite terms was 
to be effective when approved by the director of Trade and 
Commeree of Illinois as provided by par. Sle che 75, Cahill's 
T1ll. Reve Ste, and which provided, among other things, that the 
business of the consolidated companies was to be carried on by 


= 
ap. 


" ,' — * 

* of ae Sy ek ; Be — —* ¥ f 5453 ;. ¥ 5 
eGTETEOROS WMAITY 
| ¢ a ee Seley 


oO0a0TRD RO TAIN °° > | RENE ara — 
genes frente 3 * 





3 
POU EAT YTS ot ai ee 
— 19 wOTME EO aur mney —— 


entale oft quwl © dvoddlw deve ot oneted Datxd a mt oF) (oe 
etd demtage ,«8e@L ,t erwl smamgbat bos ankont? « sentaddo | mae 
ett Belion to? tenteusd) — vdora vunsri BEL andi foqons0d 
sbowelLo? Lseqaa ald? ~~ .DL. £07 uot _(qremgmod bo * 
D————— 
nelusetnos YS daemybvt « boulatdo bad qwal ta yontosta we at 
-ntoted) ymcqmo? vonewartl otfd aebirads oy tuntage 60. £008 Hot 


— 





ati mo ,(yueqaoe saawtiiawoo to «60 mabbcade ond hefteo * 
geovetai dtiw «L6CL ,OS tedmevel! eldeyeq .L80L 108 tet beteh stom 
sholiatoquwe o es00 mabixed? odd yd boduoexs sew efon of? .RS te 





bus «¥tadexrose yettit ot of bee ysmobkeore gtodue? woet welt we 
“02 yYsiavees as mid of moviy sow J) tadd antheto ismtaty end” 
tsblsad® eis ef hotehbnes sesivies vot min gmiwo bmw eub ,00re' 4 
ait? setos off to moksvvexs oil? of awehvery ta0y a dxods 00” 
— staousdnt bas geek a'yontodda bebufomt somber 
: +0) tablneds edd to atebfeddoote odd gLtOL Gi ya - Oe a | 
& Bitktqoks enolislouss honeaq wage hetebi found aft ball’ 
aaw uexed ad! yo doidw ,touxtwoo sonmuamter bua Wotiabituanos 
bets obet? te todootty odd yd heveryqs mestw ovitos tio — hall , 
A Litded «40 aslo QB ot0q Wd bodtvony am GtOMELIT 26 epzaakod” 
oad Souls yaputiss xodte arom «bebtvoug dole bee it sve crt ie 
bs ao beivieo of of aew aetnaqmos beteb!Loatos ont } 0 ane * ‘ol 







and under the name of the Cosmopolitan Life Imeuwranoe Company. 
The econtract of conselidation and reineuranee woe approved by 
the director of Trade and Commerce July 28, 1931. 

The plaintifi predicated his claim in the instant case 
upen an open account fer services rendered to the Sheridan Coe 
prior to May 18, 1931, the date when the stockholders of both 
corporations by resolution agreed to conzolidates the promissory 
note of May 20, 1931, and the judgment dedt confessed against 
the constituent corporation under the warrant of attorney contained 
in the note. 

The defendant contends thet the officers of the conutituent 
company bed no authority on Mey 20, 1951, te execute either the 
promissory note sued om or the warrant of attorney suthoriazing the 
entry of a judgment by confession on same. This contention waa 
apparently very lightlyregarded by the defendant and abandoned by 
it as no argument vas sdvaneed in ite brief in support of same. 
The courte of this and other atates are elmost unenimous in holde 
ing that a judgment note signed im the name of a corporation by 
its president and secretary will bind the corporation in the 
absence of any showing that they had no authority as such afiicers 
te sign the note. ‘“o such showing was made here and the evidenee 
is conclusive that the services were rendered for which the note 
was givene 

The contentious relicd on by the defendant for a revernal 
of this judgment are, first, that the concolidetion wan effective 
May 18, 1932, when a resolution wae passed by both corporat tons 
adopting the consolidation agreement, and thai the note having 
been exeeuted and delivered May 20, 1951, after the consolidation 
had taken place could not be enforced as an obligation of the 
Sheridan Coe existing at the time of the consolidations second, 
that if it is held that the consolidation was not effective until 





a Uregeod eomenmuel ot mathequmed add 20 osme and xobme bow 
YS bevesgts saw soriementey bee melisbitonues lo — exit 
_ shb0L 488 yu sotsmmes bua shes? lo xedootts edt 
caso dnadnt odd mi sinle att hodeotbow pugaite edt 





OO Mabtiads eld oF bereivet eeehvise x92 sdmyoeee meqe Ke * 
died Ro gapbLonkoody os apitw ofab, oid ** 4 eM: —2 = 
__ Weeden acd YoRoiteanoy oF deerme me tymcdigs et atte to nog 
5 salage bovaotavs teen Herpanyinst, ext se «Act 88 wa 3 | 
bomtasave Yaarwie to texto ould robes not ay mE 4 — * J 
ti — dene wtto eed Reb oda —— utd ma 
— *—z —— ——————— Me: 
odd Teaidte etuvswe ed 128i 408 Yl eo Yedwedies om bast ye om 
oi yatatredeve yomorse Yo Jammer tilt 2p AO dee Stor | wer : om , | 
akw moldns@npe otf? . .ekoe co weleastao yt teomoeh 2 0 tine 
ys Donotmnd) baw Ioateotod esY Yo Doveegeryight war vitaoragge 
eng to Prouqae a eked whi cb dootmvbe nave tener 2 0m ant 
_ sn ai avomtastnd seostta ora ustedes seddo Que abet tq admueea, ol 
ed nobtatogroo 9 Ye cman os mi dougie atom sromposl 4 ⸗ aaua ® tek 
lf ah meltereytes ens bald ifiw qaadereon ae teootegan aft 
axooi it doi oa Ysitedinn om bed yerld dad? gakworle yeato.opmegde 
optebive ad? fre wted shan sow gakwods slows oi. on eas wate of 
otom of? stoliw tot Soeebter evew eeodtses ont: — 
Cau avon a 19% sanbieted-cald yd me ‘pobton cust tee sa09 ABE scant 
ovhI001ts asw moldadkfoanes ots dad edoghh: 4260 Seman bert, aids. 
amgtistoqios Aſ oa Yd teasay cow metialogen.o molw —LECk +28, Na 
- pibvent oFr edt dostd baw «toomveme woltebtionneo: ed? audtgobs 
| Mok abkLowmos’ eit apdte ,LORL 90k wM hemevdle® daa: — 
Cao iy Bek deg h Le rca deoreins ad fon bivon scald. s 









































ote 


July 21, 1951, when it was approved by the director of Trade and 
Comea@rees, the defendant ati111] was mot liable te plaintiff because 
under its consclication agreement with the Sheridan Coe the 
lisbilities to be ascumed by it were specified and this elaim was 
mot ome of themj third, thet if it were held that all the 
liabilities and ovligations ef the Sheridan Coe, existing at the 
time of the conselidutions, were im lew the defendant's liabilities 
after the ceasolidation,the plaintiff mast bring Ais owit direetly 
egainet the Conselidated Company, and She law will not permit him 
when mo ection is pending againet the constituent compeny at the 
time of the consolidation to recover judgment egeinet the constiq 
tucnt company and then bring an cection egeinst the defendant based 
on the fermer Judgmert; fourth, thet, keving recovered the judgment 
after the consolidation egesinut the constituent company, the plain- 
tiff's claim and esuge of ection against the Sheridam Coe were 
merged in the judgment which was recovercd against that company 
November 25, 1951, and that the claim based om that Judgment is a 
new Glaim and not the claim existing at tho time of the consolidation, 
and therefore being a claim arising after consolidation is net 
enforetable agsinect the consolidated companiese 

In disposing of the first contention it is only necessary 
te call attention to section 8 of the contract of consolidation, 
whith is us fellows: "This contract to be subject to approval 
ef Director ef Trace und Commeree of Tlidmois, and to be in force 
— such soprovel .” 

If the contract iteelf was met cenclucive as showing that 
the consolidation went into effeet July 28, 1931, rather then May 
18, 1831, pare Sly ehe 73, Gahill's Tl. Rev. St., under which the 
consolidstion tock plece, which provider an follewn, ia devisives 





at 


aaa eax to ‘gdeothh oad YW howe caw Fh mary —V— 
aauas Witubale od efdutt sen aaw tide cnabaeted ust’ — 
as? .00 aadbrade hae dabw n fodéal ioande eet a 







ee ee aate a eos eigtide' bie orticidett 
askshitantt g'thebns th did wel ut 400 \uotfebiieaithe wt * 4 a 
Utoutth thie eb — — ——— — oats gto t | : 
“phat dtereoy fon LLiw wak ots bits —E — betabtio 
edd fa Ytsques iredisanos att dantepe ante ie ak — — 
————— Sire Sut seve00% u J sais | xi 
roand tuchneteb sad faakage aottes at gabud morte * emanate 
bee —— odd heroveoet gutved ytadd 9 —— ‘. i 













eragaios sense —E beteverss new shitty sasmphut ‘et iat” —* J— 
aah toamgitlt dad? av teast etate ents todd meu ween’ ae te ine — 
 yhoktsbtfouncs eit te ott zne J gicttabee atede ost 46H Sas whee wi 

tar nant — siti — E * * oat wi a 
— —XRE — * — 
 qHottabhioaos Ye dosadned odd to O wotiosa oF motsael te —— 
Lavosggs at dpohelicn od oF tomeduno wlAl” tawolfot es a aoa 
910% Bt ad of ban wahowEILt to sytem)’ — X 


















ens ois “voter de —— BEE wt ae 
tevintosh wb cera CO my sabbveny awia · — 
Ka vi — bag cco ce. Ce oui 


BS AME AUS SD ab ite ae sl eM SRL SM SLT 


odes 


"pon adoption of the articles of corscolidation or 
eortract of reinevrence, oe provided ter hereim, wnid propened 
articles of consolidntion or contract of reinguranee shall be 
duly execute? by the president ond atteated by the secretary, 
or the executive officers corresponding therete, under the care 
perete seal of exch of the consolidating er comtracting companies, 
and thereupon a certifiec eopy of such articles of consolidation 
er contract of reinsurenec, together with « certifieate ef its 
ndeptions, as provided for hereim, verified by the affidavits of 
such efficers end under the seul of exch of sadd companies, shall 
be cubmitted to the Director of Trade amc Commerce for his approval. 


*** Ho articles of consolidation. GE SOOR ELL Dn LEAD BMT SECC 
phod eke 2.08 until the provicions of this “et ~ 
feyve been 


oo — 


| souplied with and the apprey of the sizsesor of Trace 


and Comneree hos been ae texein provicus.* 
Defendant's contention thet the note wae given after the consolie 
dation is mot sound. 

There igfuerit im defendant's second contention thet 





its liability on obligations ef tac vheridem Cos existing at the 

time of the consolidation wag linitec by the texme of the consolidation 
contract and thet it asswucd ne isbility as te plaintiff's claim. 
The law ig well settled that consolidating corporetions mny make 
agreements or contracts resixvieting or limiting Liabilities and elaims 
existing at the time of she conadlidation thet may be binding aa te 
themeecives, but said gomtracts can have se bint im; force as to thixd 
persons, and that if the liability of the consolicdnted company ia net 
fixed by the contract of conselidation or by statute for the claims 
and obligstions of the constituent compomies existing at the tine 
of the consolidation it is imposed by operation of lew. 

fhe rights of erecitorse of consolidating companies are 

protected in this state under pare 71 of the General Corporation 

Age, which is applieable to ecensolidatione under the Insuranee 

2et and which provides: 

ef either — et enn mag Saag 0 oe Me oA oe —— « oR. ya 
apestive cargerstions shall Renecferth attcen to eusn single 


corporation and may be enforeed against it to the same extent as if 
euch debts, lisbilities and duties had been incurred or contracted 


by it. * * “ 


+R 


“oe “no fSahi Leesna E — ‘ote te of dqabs iene wines 
ll te rye 

of 5 — bala pi Sak gM yh ray ping 28° — 

aie eres 6 Foedi« bree eh aes “Ge peteooxe eke 


tare gee tee ams pan ica we he a orl iuesxe 
23428 ut aTo nig af? to dose to e 
— *—* to ———— 2 ‘to wiroo ————— 
— 35 edhe. Sede oges af : 

Pohl in — 




















———— — —— ot] 
eae ia 


be 


Fade coldendade stowen ot dealiie'tel” 5* edt? — * 

gata Se ‘adda tnd +o gabiasdt Gets “Ye wnat sigh hse we : | 
“mebtshttontos Sotd Yo eueed dds oP AeA tare daw Os dali toondo 

“wetted oO VE Nittany Sten CEE GwT ae Nosed 61 did tne domme 

ons’ yak rrr—————— 

eatelo bes goriirrdate geteiatd 40 yatistviaet atorxtaee * aden 
of wh jute od Sin Vodlt: ei enbé Zon ito ott ‘ty oaks one: 

“pubis of ws eotet ‘yah Said ox sved nes udsanduoe Sted ‘se behinds 

om ok ‘aaagahoe podaGttoution “eitd Lo Qi tiedhs end na anos vwoa 

ant ats até tot otusddo yd 4a —— te seoveres add ye SRS 

x “omks asia * eats tes aoiacgaes Jetios oft Yo saolsogttyo bua 

NS ae te moblssse ——— — 9 

* astaoqaes ——— te ered! care 3 * J———— 9 or 








> 









% * 
F 


edt 
wise 


sabi Leann 
ont to nolteh bra — atdab ny ; 
° eiaeky deve of dnedts a 
te am sa9dxe emne esd of 
 ~bedvaréaee to 


-5e 


Defendant's third contention is that plaintiff is 
precluded from maintaining this action beecuse suit was not 
brought directly against the defendant conselidated company after 
consolidation. It is insisted im support ef this contention 
that after the corsolidetion the only causes of action that can 
be maintained against the constituent company are causes that were 
a@tueliy pending at the time of the conselidatien and that other 
existing claims against the constituent company can only be 
enforced by action directly against the resulting corporation and 
in support of this contention the defendant relies on pare 39 
of the Insurence Act, which provides: 

"Ne action er preceeding pending at the time of the 
consolidation er reinsurance, te which cither of the consolidating 
companies or the contrecting companies may be a party, shall be 
abated or ciacontinued by reason of such consolidation or rein- 
gurance, but the same may be prosecuted to final judgment in the 
game manner as if the consolidation or reinsurance had not taken 
Place, or the consolidated or reinsuring company, if the reinsur- 
anee agreement so provices may be substituted in plscesf any 


such company so consolidated er reinsured, as the case may be, 
by order of the court in which the action or proceeding say be 


pending» 

This statute dees provide the procedure as to pending 
suits, but it is silent as to the manner in which existing claims 
that are not in suit shall be prosecuted. It is urged that it 
waa necessnry for the purpose of orderly procedure in the courts 
that the status of pending suite agsinst constituent companies be 
not disturbed and that the same necessity did not exist as to 
Claims upon “hich mo action hac been camwmeneed and that it could 
be rensonably inferred thet it was the intention ef the legislature 
thet actions based on such claims must be brought directly against 
the consolidated company which wis alive and coing and in a position 
te defend against such claims. 

Wo ease has been cited in this state and we have been 
unable te find one that holds that the plaintiff is precluded from 
recovering under the facts presented here uniess the action is 


at titgmtale dade eat aektaedmeo ottdld 2! tanbastek 
ton sew tun Santeoed aohren akeld gnfaiedohes mov unloara 
wotts ymaquios ꝛeoooi toaaas sustaotod old taakaga ——— —* 
rrao age wid te deoqdee mt bodalent at 21 








shobtabk, . 
Kev dectd golden to aeneww veo wit watts ts ie, cab Dial 


er Get: penny wae qnogaoe Stemi danos afd fontoge ——— 
—R todd ban Motisbiisaied edt to outy ofa oa wa bag * — 
ia * yhine See Ltd gnewstsemoo add tons, 9 7 didgte Win, Oke Vie 





«bts molisxogiee yatiiueet att teniage ulivett> sobive — 
@& stag mo aellex fmebnetod ond molsnetnws. atdd ‘teodteqqwe’ at 


saab veuy sete er beers 


ws ho ele as aa, gwibessoug to mation ol" AS 
. pitvabidonsoo 9 to withe dolde ef yvemewantes — * ſosa aus 







s of yea. * vein 
‘waket 26 Rodda! eanes sioxa %o mosaot yd ticone guest 0. 
gale ot deobegby 


; Pe a9 y be Cepek onder th wpingon nt 

me =a Prag ot gh Pmt) <0 meida —— edd Bi ge ager gp 
~ tat sk OF vane wakes | 

yous ha Rl My ive 


“ed au aoal eg 6s —— 2 
ed Ysd vaso, ado as 2 horwentot —— tie al Sauce mss 
— a¢ You wureseeend 16 "poten esi “dolite ai pre oe aes * 


“puitbaog ef 20 erwshaoorg, ond ohiven neo fetta. ald 
| emt ato aatostxs sho el uh ToaKem on2 ad an @eeiie at af — 


$2 Gadd bogus ad a shetwoosorg od Limfs tiva mt tom exe dealt © 
etzuoo edd at omubonerg Visob<o To oxemrn anit x0 3 | 

e¢ ankaqmoo Smeusivanas tantogs atkue gatbnog 39. vutada edt fond 

ot wi tatxe tou bkh yWieaeoes omen ond datid dow —E& ton 

bLues $i dade tie onmeamae sted ont mobos om sold nog 

erideLotged ad? te mottacgnt ond wow @h doutt bevee tat 








—— 
— 
ae) 











Suntayn ULtoorkh sdguord od tus ambele done. no beead aoisss ¢ nt 





sited aya ov baw —— arr) ak Sethe wood wit ones tt 


moxt hobukvexg ef Bikimtele os dnslt ebied ‘tito ono 2 sit — 
ws sol ton edt sastne ove. bodaesong: ato — tebe prom 









-6e 


brought directly against the consolidated company. 

Both plaintiff ani defendant cite ond rely upon 
Chicago, So Fe & Co Rys Coo ve Ashling, 160 Tl» 373, and 
Franklin Life Insuranee Cos ve Adem, 90 Tle Appe 653, The 
fghling case, efter holding that the consolidated company 





assumed all the liabilities and obligstions of the constituent 
company, held that an action sould be prosscuted te judgment 
against the constituent company and in turn againet the consolidated 
oompanye This, however, was « case in which the action was pending 
at the time of the consolidation. In the Adams case a policy holder 
of the constituent company died after the consolidation and an action 
was brought against the conetituent company to recover on the policy. 
Tae court held that the cause ef action erose after the consolidation 
and therefore the only proper defendant was the consolidated company. 
In Langhorne vy. Richmond ete. y+ Cos, 91 Vt. 69 (22 Se Xe 159, 161), 
the plaintiff made the constituent compeny and the consolidated 
company joint de'endants in an action arising out of a claim 
against the constituent company which existed at the time of the 
econselidation. In kolding that they eould not be wued jointly 
the court said? 

*They are not jointly liable. One is liable for 
ef the conselidation progtedings. The plaintiff has the right 
Se Fights to sus beth in the come action St laws? 

Hone of these eases presents the — question involved 
im this case where the plaintiff in an «ction broucht after con- 
selidation recovers a judgment against the constituent company 
on a claim exiating ot the time of the consolidetion ané in turn 
brings an action agninet the conselidated company based on the 
previous judgment alleging facts showing the concelidation. 

The plaintiff maintains that his claim againect the 


constituent company was secured by a judgment note and that he 


etioymer kedebtfoanes afd dnalege yLdvettd idpwotd 
“Req on Sa the dmebme tek: bre Videtese Mek oo. 


te SRS 6 LF OL gambiae «vy: — — 
gat (BBN cde ·ta OR gamebs ay: 29084 ’ 








| — ot bedevesesg od Cuen — seat * a Uegacd 
hogabiicenos at? suulage omen? wb das -geoqaes dnetigangs oe demtage 
gatoneg sew moldon ons sottin at ones #, om a toweReE aehds, «KenGmRD 
sobfed Yolkog a oust gqugbs wt nl semitebtiornpo od? To. wht A 
Melses oe dae molsabifonnee on wetka beth youpeoe smewss, 0 ne AP 
: eves oe fe Reveout od yoann — a6 santogy Anau am 
| * — oa 8) ° * — D498 —E— 
Be sob! Loanos ott bre yangece — — 
mtale s ke ue gtteize pottes ms ai adnabaptoh n 
—— wa — ode xonones amet inano aft domtan 
78 Bite O¢ dom bios Wud dod youdtod ah Abadi Sonne 
ae sc il tape oo. gad 
| * At wir! Coneten®: st oe i ci 




















, Me So eae cs Gite che 


ek ite Sue ey 





, th . : [ a & sane, 
ast id —* — an es 4 
"sted ele cae — 


—*— —E—— ete eantena ——— —* Saige 
acud at oie nobtant tonnes ‘ot ‘tor oabe ats ae sate 2 ce 


Je 


was justified under the law in enforcing his claim in the manner 
and form in which it existed «<t the time of the ¢onsolidation end 
without any impairment of his righte regardlesa of the consolidation. 
Tt is clear that the law would not permit the plaintiff to obtain 
a judgment by confession againat the consolidated company om a judge 
ment note which was executed by the constituent corporation since 
the consolicatcd company did net execute the warrant ef attorney 
and & warrant of attorney to confess must be drictly pursued. If 
the plaintiff wee compelled to bring his action cirectly against the 
consolidated company he would haye had to waive his judgment by con- 
fession without process, which would have Deen a serious impairment 
of his rights existing 5% the time ef the eensolidation. 

There is no contention that this was not a meritorious 
Claim and under the facts presented we feel thet the plaintiff was 
within hie rights in sbtaining the judgment by corfescion «gs inet 
the constituent company and bringing his action against the cone 
aelidated company based on that judgment. 

In conatruing the lew appliceble to a consolication 
effective under the “ew York statute, which is similer to ours, 
the Kew York court ef Appeals said in Uties Nat. Brewing Coes 
154 Ne Yo 268, 2738 

“Nor did the reeovering of the judgments upon the 
notes affect the creditor's rights against the new company. 
Their effect was, simply, to effect a change in the form of 
its liability to ita ereditor. it was open to the creditor, 
under the provisions ef the statute, pursusnt to which the 
cougolidation ef the companies was effected. (Chape 691, 
Laws of 1892), to enforce the lipbility, either against the 
corporation whose debt it was, cr againet the new corporetion 
whose debt it beeome under the statute, which made it liable 
to pay and disehearge all of the liabilities of each of the cor- 
porstions comeclidated, (See. 12.) The very purpose of this 
statute, while permitting companies to consolidate themselves 
inte 2 single corporetion, eas te preserve to the erediter all 
his rights, unimpaired by what was done, and its operation is 
to furnish to him remedies, necessarily, econeurrent in their 


mature. ‘The creditor's pursuit of = remedy againat his original 
debtor presents no legal obstecle to his effect to collect his 


debt from the new company." 
To avoid cireuity of action no doubt the proper preetice 


tence ese mt wele eid geberetes af wel ont tober PeLiEteey dew 

bax moltebif{eane eds to outt ofd de BSotetne df dotew at mot doe 
net iabltosias ed? te asekbinget ada gir wht to tenmcheget aw doodhte 
mietde od TWbtabely eld Pee: Pom: River week ote gant: — 
~piul 2 wo Yueqmos DedMEE Loans odd samtags mitenstaes Yh Serhe 
sonte moticmqies tmostidwaed eft yt Beddeeka — — 
















phe cate ets wank ean an nga x 
aa: daskone Yhteewih mobtes elt gubed ot seston: ome tk 
mtg <A droog wast over oF bast eeahaennasieasihamanial ssdeok 
 dmearskeqst anolten « ms06 Fad hinew Aoirin. sasoong daontd 

| amo tab! Loneog ond. to metd ont: — * 


| — ———————————— — aimtagete 
"a0 ait. dunk ape mottos at sntauted San | , 
We tedifoenos @ 04 eiéaoliqga wet mile seeteneo ar⸗ J 

od seine ak deise odudete: Meo wert eae co bm eete si ia 

















— ot Rg 


LWragMeS eM acd | 
Ge meek and "a wptete = —— — nda e 
seats ieee edd ov i: Mp oo — ed 


wlio cas see), sbodostis any ——— 
— —— 8 — 5535* ** 
— eke i oat EI 
vice ald a2 evipeong OF | :LOYTOR. “= 
Wt faisstage ed! ban stags = Pog ee 
— ‘Sunlega Ybentes en a ——— — ee eee ee! 
ant, BPetteo. ae somrre 





Re 


ag @ general rule is to proceed directly againat the resulting 
corporation on a elaim against a constituent company existing 

at the time of the consolidation but that rule cen have no 
applicetion here where the claim iz scoured by a Judgment note 
executed by the constituent company, which could not by its terms 
be confessed against the consolidated company. Im 7 Re Ge Ley 
Pare 1595 pe 187, the law is enid to bes 


“Henee, if by authority of law and the set of the parties, 
the consolidatec corporations are molded into one with none ef their 
rights impaired, and none of their responsibilities lesaened, there 
is no good reason why the same procecdings may not be had inet 
the new corporation as might hnve been had against the cold to caspel 
payment of liabilities. This avoids circuity of action and allows 
the party with whom the contract wes made, or to whom the injury wee 
done, to proceed directly against the corporation which, by virtue 
of the consolidation proeecdings, is made liable for it. And the 
fact that the constituent corporstions are to be deemed as atill in 
existence for the purpose of protecting the rights of erediters does 
not, where the consolidated company assumes or has imposed upon it 
the liabilities of its constituents, prevent suit being brought by 
a erediter of the old against the new corporation. In such a case 
the effect of the statute is to permit the prosecution of the claim 
against either the new or the olc coxporation. Nor does the 
recovery of signees against the constituent corporation affect 
the statutory Liability of the conselidatee company for the cebte 
ites effect is simply a change in the form of its liability to its 
oreditorge 


Ve ere of the opinion tht under the facts presented 
the plaintiff procecded properly against the old corporation and 
in turn against the consolidated company fer in no other way 
could he have preserved all his rights and established hiz claim 
unimpaired and in ne wise “changed er modified." 

The defendant's fourth centention that in the judgment 
against the old company was merged whatever claim the plaintiff 
hat againct the Sheridan Coe, and inasmuch os the judgment against 
the Sheridan Coe was entered after the consolidation it presented 
a new claim for which the consolidated company could not he held 
liable, is untenable. 

This contention is completely answered and refuted by the 
holding of our Supreme court, which is equally applicable here, in 


Ghicage S- Ps & Co By’ Coo ve Ashhings supras in which it is saids 


peliivees add teatega yliousis beseong ot at edie Laren a0 
 Bilteleo yorquee Soomdiseago @ tantege stele o a0. mo Ldaweqxen | 
ott ead aso eux tal? dud goldebhfoanes ede to outs att to | 

catia jxepgiet « yt bevwcen at atelo adt -onedw exed. wottoahins 
———— ake scommemne tent bene 88 E 



















ged 50 of T als ynegung detebhioanes eft soutage, boanetap 
td te dos off Soa.wat to ** Nt —— —*— 
so ** * A peti otal = foxy 
—* Fg ck ax thedt te. — on bee bored age. 
don You —* pores Me — 

ot xo wv, oc ganged — 

* age — i oh — seer" — —— 

L oho ek seuaibosgong . 

‘ a ete as “fet tee ed Of eta 


. bia aus ped of ben et wal odd gter $000 oa 
| be Om On Bre. 
pay. ty AL Ber} gant iota. —* 
bia oS —— ——— ae re 
usoh 2 to aactata gale ine on 








‘te git Fire 
SoM Eelsatmasoe F ———— 


630d ody 4O% YRaqmos 20 Nee tutete hs 
adi ou eilidalt Bil Ye — ade wi — ants s 
sednonesg —— dail⸗ — odd 2, ox — oct 
dna Wokinwogres bLo ad? tantewa uiwEeNE bohovpore BBAgmbety: on⸗ 
Aw Ioelso OM Mi TOT YuogADD dodabhLennos odd domtage muwy iat 
aialo eld delelidadiae baa addyit eit La bevarae eg: ovat 0 nt 0 
bo nàhoa xo Repeater sake on ct Om boxtagatans 
tuomout, ott at tate aot· na acos Lome, a ténabnoked ar — 
“—— oid 28 —— ts 4000: mablaod® att 8 ae * ad 
bo dwouorg th m9) ss ddLeanon watt ‘aod —R tow do! trea on | 


J Pell. 
aAda bel fot Bkwoo Ymeqane betubh fooavs — Man set may ee a 



















odd yf hedater Ans dorevaun ern * —E— ster 
, Sta ores eidevif£ags elope ef dehdw trod om * yt uo to , 
Abhen af ¢% dotiw mh qaregame epiabty 






Je 


"It is next insisted by pleintiff in errer, that ag 
the judgment sued on in thia case was rendered after the consolidatio 
it cannot be held te be a liability of the ©t. Louls company existing 
at or acerued prior to such consolidation, within the meaning of the 
statute ereating the liability. Counsel refer to the well known 
rule that the original liability of cause of action is merged im the 
judgment, and say that in this ease the judgment must be regarded as 
@ mew debt or liability whieh accrued when the judgment was rendered,: 
that is, after the consolidation took place,- and that the statute 
ereating the liability does not make the consolidate: company liable 
for enuses of action accruing against ite constituent members after 
the consolidation. The ease of Boynton ve ly 105 Ihle G2, and 
other cnses, are cited by counsel as precti F decisive of the 
question. The point decided by these cases relevant to this discussic 
amounts to but little more than = re-statement of the general rule 
above mentioned, that the jucgment is a new debt or Liability into 
which the original cause of setion has been merged. There would be 
much force in the contention of counsel from a tevimies1 point of view, 
in determining the question raised in the ence at bar, vere it not for 
the other statutory proviveions which it is eq the duty of the 
courts to enforce. By section ? of the act of 2, above set cut, 
the consolidstion “shell not affect suits pending,® *ner causes of 
action, ner the rights of persons, in any particular,® and suites 
previously byought shall not be abated; by the act of 1385 nothing 
in it shall "Be so construed as te im any manner relieve or discharge 
any railroad company * * © from the duties or obligations imposed by 
virtue of statute* in foreee These provisions of the statute 
would be nullified if the rule contended fox should be applied in 
such a onee as this.” 


The same dectrine wae enunciated in 7 Thompson on 
Gorporations, se@e 6242, in which it is stateds 


"But it is believed that mest of the statutes which 
authorize consolid«tions expressly provice that all rights of 
action existing againat the constituent companies at the time of 
the consolidation shall survive egainct the new corporation thereby 
formed. ‘here the statute contains this saving clause, and a person 
recovers a jucgment at law sgainet » corporation whese ssseta, 
franchise, steek, etes, have been acquired by another corporations 
by @ purchase and an issuing of ite own shares in payment, the 
judgment ereditor may maintain an action of debt upen his judgment 
agaimet the purchasing corporstion,- the trang: ection being a 
consolidation, end net a mere sale and purchase of usseta. The 
statutery right of a eredi of one of the constituent corporations, 
or of a person damaged a tert of one of them, to enforce his demand 
against the consolidated corporation, ie not impaired by the fact 
that he haa recovered a for hig demand sgainet the constituent 
corporation, on any theory of merger or otherwise." 


Finding no errer in the judgment of the trial court it 


must be affirmed 
' Ave TAMED. 


Scanlan, PP. Jeg and Gridley, Je, concure 


eS tacts «toon mi Vitinieale yd bedehant deen ai · 
‘ubgahiiileis @io Geats Sorehet eaw Gund abd? al ag hows Seems 
geiéaine vegies etoed 28° acid to Yilidail s ed of dies od —* 
wis te galvetu aid mhagin Leper pe: dave od s6i%y bowtsoa 


avond flow add of soot Age sed | ait oxtt snare 
om? wi te Gaunn to Wi Het £ Lanisi aS sat 


es Setmener ed teu teoaghut eff sone aida oh # on 
sho vo baws SW Psd but ads wadw béerieca do law witiait 2 Fass — a 


ete off todd Sue -geontg toot meties) fonnes 
wee < Veeews —— — add wan sen eeGd ony * teenies 
tadtn axsdue: ¢mentizenos ati tamings yasagoen pine. te ae @ 


boa , TR «SLi BOL ¥_fod “%¢ Saag oft 
: sit — a8 — 
—D 





aig te evialeod pA yaa “e path ora 
sivaweods aislé ef émavedot ponsy suedds yo sebiecs tate 
_adort Lexomen ole ta ducmotate-2% 4 mess * — 
sdeb wen & at seep gg Bye ¢ dest “ob 
46 Divew oventl  .degsen aoe * —— nie 


— te emtog Lsolades 
ok san i otow «tad ax ghee 


— a te tos Soe wate — * 




























bor ogar — + Paly in deren nett 3 seg eet : 
yduteta shi to guolaiverq east? «terol af “aes 
fyi oe bisada 62 — 


4 ue — si sae — otto * a 


gota — ko tuem tact beveled et Th, anoint. 
« Ree 4 ila godt shtvenq yenengs ‘tos : 
PRE opi a efi ta ———— — ——— 2 —— Sida 
“deucd) Moltategzes wan eli gasioaga vam Ifeta goliath 
soared # bas ySatels gatves sidt iPro ‘gbutode. ens @ Te 
sevesee ovode aoliezeqioe s teqtege eed 
ang —— Ba fe ——— — ffm vl : % ¢ 
af ioeyag two —2* Bis snakes s 
dewmpyowt ald moqe igo to molten ta ninaed po bors 
2 giied noltenghen? off +qneide 2. 
eat «udouse to seotigtwg ban yd erga 
2augi iat 9 ate ds sence *1 * pee To, moet sox 
diewet tena’ o oii “fata bas — Er 
meootwnaato ae ⁊e ‘seyret 3 


—X — oni 9 groargiont oe nt wr on canbe wien 
" abou ea of tou 








eC : fake 
wevOROe gob — —“ wate © +S guntanes 


¥ ‘ J, 

f hiss pO: as 
+e * Peay: 

+} VED — es 





46543 


MYRTLE KM, BLAND, 
Appellee, 





be Ae 
f 


APHRAL FROK KUNTOIPAL cobRT 
OF CHICAGO, 


va. 


MODERN WOOMMER OF AMERTCA, 
a Corporation, 


— —— —— — 


Appellant, 


270 1.A. 623° 
MR, PRESIDING JUSTICR MeBUARLY 
DELIVERED THE GPINIGER OF THE COURT, 

Defendant appeale from a judgment of 8500 entered upon the 
verdiet of a jury. Plaintiff's claim wae on an insurange policy, 
or benefit certifiente, issued by defendant upen the life of her 
husband, Joseph A. Keland, in which she was the beneficiary, ‘The 
defense was (1) that it was necessary to prove that Kr. Heland was 
in good health when the certificate wae issued, and (2) that the 
yepresentatione ae te the state of sis health made in the applica- 
tien fer insurance were Meise, 

ur. Beland had been o mewber of the defendant organisation 
since 1905, with insurance for $2000; he retired from empleyment in 
i930 and in September, 1951, reduced the amount of insurance he was 
carrying to $506; in Deeesber agevlication wae made for an additional 
9600 ef ineurance and the agent of defendant made out the applice- 
tion, but because it conteined a mistake it was returned to the 
agent, whe made out a whele new form of application en February 5, 
1932, The benefit certificate in controversy wae issued February 
16th; Beland divd February 25th. 

it was sufficiently preven that Beland was in good health 
at the date the policy wae issued, jie was 57 years o14 at the time 
of his death, Witnesses who had known him for awany years said he 
was in apparent good health. The agent for defendant whe bad known 
him sinee 1905 testified that on the day he delivered the benefit 
certifieste Seland had on hie working clethes, wae papering a room 
and was in avparent good health. There wae evidence that he was 







Nabe 4 Q\ ba 
a THO00 “Jasons wa. aa 





“tga 10 — 








a ia ial a Ne mins bBo na 


90 * as⸗ nee — Panne teh 7 | tion ip 
— — —— outs one aie — * o Las 
enw y Sans * vest aah * — bag a ha ss 


Bat 3 


a RE Ra Ne BA on CL a ee A Oy ——— 


x — wise ued’ 
——— — iia | 








F “paw'ed tad’ —R nw xed? wd hows be * a 


active - wheeling ceml inte Ain basement, repairing an automobile 
aud a truck wheel, using a heavy sledge haamer, On February 15th 
he avesinted « driver te start hie sautowebile by pushing it o 
quarter of a block; 1t wae deeoribed as “quite a hard push. * 

Pebruary 16th Seland apparently caught cold while working 
om Gk automobile, and « Dr. Snglemann waa eniled and treated him, 
At noon on the ith of February while he was in the bathroom, 
areseed, he fell to the fieor and soon died, 

In the death certificate of Dr. Englemann the cause ef 
death is given as "suricular fibrillation,” and the remote cause 
ef death as “bronchiectasis.” A Deetar tewtifying as an exsert 
on behalf af defendant eaid that “brenehiestagie" is an aggravated 
condition of bronchitis, omd that "auricular fibrillation” is a 
fluttering of a valwe of the heart; he gave it oo his opimien that 
these diseases could pot commence after February Sith (the date of 
the application) and cause deatn by Februsry 24th; that it might 
take "bronchieetasis” ae such as five veure to cause “surieular 
fibrilistion.* 

Yae jury coul4 eroperly conclude that Belend was in ap- 
parently good health and vigor at the time the benefit certificate 
was ismed, it is a tiatter of commen knowledge that persons suffer 
from obscure irregularities of the heart without being aware af 
their condition, ond whieh even a careful examination by « physi- 
eian faile te diselose, As between the opinion evidenee as to hew 
far in the past Belend had suffered from any bronchial or heart 
trouble, and the objective «evidence ae te his physical conditien © 
and activities, the jury was Justified in accepting the evidenee of 
these whe had known him leng and seen him daily. 

Refendant asserts that Beland sade false anewers in his ap- 
Plication te questions teuching hie healtn, ‘the faleity of his 


enewers was not preven. One of the questions was whether he had 


y 





ekkaginas mn ae gabiloges of sesame) aid erat fans gt fondo — evtien 
Me yrewide? a stommed oyhete yraed « patew douse soot? dam 
@ #2 gutrouy yo @Lidouadme 224. state es xoviw as patent 

* dewq fied a oftup*® ae bodiapash — 2 i jalootd: & to todcmnet 
——— white whew sigues ‘Ges me tHe ge haw Lod aees Ylavidot ie 
ald Pedeotd bus beilay cow ansendyat 10 ao bon oO kA s wate S yas Ae as 
— sieoatad sud ak saw ot r⸗nn— {ty M98 9d? no moon $A 
__, theth mooe bas to9lt vat of sted om demwonh . 

ww paws — nse ts —* * etme bihexee am⸗n att Bas awe 
—R os ome salt one * ,sohtaliteds® tokuotiua® ow wavy an i denn ; 
Preeee oe oe aukygiiseod xesoot A S ptbsateotiionnag™ a Bend : 
betevatane ia al “elantosidenors™ seats phen Sambao 20d 20 cr Mod. Pe 

ag “ ak *nottatitedst advo bra" test bow — — xe nod kha 2 ‘@ 
sass — ated ee ak ors ei — oa * —— — beng —* je 2 — 

























ous ab new has Soi esis chstanon efxegoe bkweo emt oat 
‘ptankiiswe shtoned ests wands ost 6 to_ty baw as Lao hoon, i , 
metus anomie gasid aghe audie⸗ Homo Le Teniam & ai ial “sbawont * came 
to sxaws gaied uu dw tran auld ‘ke aot sdeacugorsh owonge next . 
= be ele ® aebeanlinens fivtorse a inarvs A d ai bane Bolt innes shod | 
weet of aw anaodive actalgs st nuewted wh sonoseadd 92 afhat mete 
frnod 19 atsionord yn wort hove Tiow het Baated teeg pct ak wet 
* "pelt — adel * me eonabive ovisoehde saa hae <oitwort “4 
Ww ‘oonebive oat LS eH at bode gant mae wins, ants eekthytivs * 
Bi nid aenn have pred mic avon bout by ae t. | 
oq whe at stowenn onto? aba foetal tase —8R — —— 
a het te yetate® ast? ~it Lad abst gaiiowod enoltsecee a * 


ast a — wow noi 2e0up sts 1 oa) .mevowd ton saw & , 


a tet ye 

















“ever had, oy has any physician treated you for or informed you 
that you ever had* - and then follows a leng liet of diseases of 
alsost every variety, imecluding delirium tremens, yeliow fever 
ané snallipex, Such a question was unreasonable, and the preeump- 
tion is that the negative anewer must be true. There was no proef 
that it was false, 

Compiaint ia made of the inetrustions given by the court 
to the fury. The court inetructed the jury orally and the record 
ehers only a general exeeption. Under Aule @ of the Municipal 
court the objeetions must be apeolfic. 

Fe do net dees 1¢ necosenry te comment upon a1] the 
pointe discaunead in the triefe. Ye would net be juatified in 
setting aside the verdict, and the facgment ie therefore affirmed, 

AF¥IRWED, 


Batehett and G'tonmer, J2., soncur. 








— 2 — n ty cot voy bode — 
— seasoeth YO ¢atf yoot & aweltet aed? bras "haw tre ‘ie tat 


— odd hom ,eidansasvtan how mo hivous & eae 






vad lolo tan ys sii tee 





gere% wolsoy (etpmet? autikieb yalbwteat —R ’ . a 





Tog 6 naw exalt Steal od Teun cows aw x sehen Wa Hah ok nett 


tauvo ond YS heviy eaolgowrsnat ony te whow sl — om — 
Ayan | ead bres ** — rent | —* reo - —— | 


y 


* at * — Seabed * al 


— Basi Bai! GC OF Searle +t SO-Nebs ee Ad ‘dy et Oe 
*4 MERON Ce — Reg ROR 3 — * 















Tish wah ae abby 2 sm. 
— i 
eM ne IS sar aa Haut swe bei 
; Hee *8 


— 
a 
Cas 
ae 


AB ahtir:* A COR ey # Pi MR AL ee * 
* — he ATL 


SY howe ‘ a '§ * 
eel —AI BARS EN RD 


LOUIS WELSH, ) 
Appeliant, 


ve. 
JOHN GHIFVFLITHS AND Son 


COMPANY, a Corporation, 
Appellee, 





— —— 


270 I.A. 624 


MR, PRESIDING JUSTICE MeSURELY 
DELIVERED THE OPIKIOH OF THR COURT, 


Plaintiff brought suit te recover compeneation for personal 
injuries. Upen trial the court instructed the jury to find for de- 
fendant, and plaintiff appeale from the adverse Judgnent entered 
on the verdict. 

Plaintiff's brief in taie court is written in complete dis- 
regard of Appellate Court Rule 19, and out of the eix eases cited 
four were ineorreetly cited and one isproperly entitled. RAowever, 
a6 only a single question is inveived we shall consider the case 
on ite merits. 

The gist of plaintiff's claiw is tiat a certain fence 
defendant had conetrueted in cennection with the erection of the 
new post office building in Chicago wae sc improperly conetruated 
that it fell over onte plaintiff, injuring him. The defense is 
that the construction of the fence 4id nething more than ereate a 
condition by which an injury wae made possible by subsequent un- 
foreseen independent acts of third persona. 

About Septesber 1, 1931, defendant was preparing to erect 
& new post office buiiding in Chicago on a site bounded by Marrison, 
VenEuren and Canal streets; in order to enclose the work about te be 
undertaken, defendant erected fences acrese the Harrison street end 
of the lot and on the center of the Canal street pavenent; plain- 
tiff's witnesses described a portion of the Canal street fence as a 
temporary fence; thia wae constructed of 2 x 4 timbers with stringers 
on the top and bottom; 2 x 4 timbers were placed crosswise on the 





iatontog x0 washed eovedes 62 dive gitgeotd ———0 — 
<sb tot Batt of Gua sof besovevent awe oad talad negd ee 4 
hotetas snommbul eexrevhs odd aor? eleonce ‘vibdata ty ‘bon , dha. et J 
— — ee p : «ks ; —— — hn 




















 wevewsll .bolileuw yixeqetqel sao bun fade. Usoerto0nt wor * fei 4 

oun edt sobisaoe ifesie ow bevloval of nolseeny — a 4 4 
a pone’ atasues @ acs e& mbake o'Yiteniale te tule oat — — 
owe Ye Kodseer eu? attw aohzowanos * berestsenoe bat tr $e! ai te 








S “ ai oaeted ect vats yaiaubal ,Teidatasa etue teve te we 4 7 By 
4 etaote oad? @1e"% suidioa bib one aut to nettourt een eda teat a 
= ite —— “ed eidleeog then av rehat ‘as doide we nite bron % a 

kaowr ag bulst to «toa tra baw qo bat rs in oe 


feet of yaltageta ane somhae'teh , 1842 of todnos goe two 





| od of suoda atow sis ecotone of — —— fans Bae cee take 
hep Soarte soe trail ead aecres —— beseore toahaetos — * 


a te onne? teorse Late. edd to — a — E—— ... 
— tiv exadais > x & to Besouetenso sow akdd {oom Yxer 
J ent ao estwasvte hensig oxew *— be J — baw 


A 
by LY , 


t +z —F J iv 
wee : — 


lower etringers about every six or eight Poet and stuck out about 
two feet on either side of the lewer stringer; 1 x 6 inch boards 
were nailed onte the stringers; the whole fonce wan about elx er 
seven feet high; the cross-pieces upon which it rested were anchored 
by meane of large luwpe ef rock and concrete. 

Plaintiff first avpeared on the premises of defendant abeut 
the let day of September, seeking empleynent; he had « conversation 
with a watehuan for defendant whe told him that there was te be no 
hiring on that dey, but te return the feliowing Tuesday; plaintiff 
appeared on the premises September Sth at about six o'¢loek in the 
morning snd with several other sen passed through an opening in the 
fenee on the Vanburen street aide amd waited inside, apparently 
standing next to the se-called temporary fence; about a quarter to 
seven o'clock there were several thousand men eongregating all ever 
the sidwalke and atreet; about this time the watchman came cut of 
the cower house, and when be wae eeen by the crowd outoide the fence 
it began to move forward toward the fence and crowded ap against it 
and pushed 1t over from the outside; 1% struck plaintiff and knecked 
him down, A witnese for plaintiff deseribed the erowd a6 consisting 
ef several thousand men who came right againat the fenee, giving 
4t a violent push, when it went over. 

Without passing upen the question of the authority of the 
Watebman to tell plaintiff te return, or whether or not plaintiff 
Was an invites, we ure of the epinion that the circumstances support 
4efendont's wersion of the occurrence, It hae been repeatedly held 
that if a defendant's negligence does nothing more than furnish a 
condition making the injury possible and injury follows by the 
eubsequent independent aet of ehira persens whieh could net have 


been reasonably anticipated, the ecendition is not the proximate cause 
ef the injury, Habrey vy, Haverstick, 175 111. App. 309; Crawford v, 
t Ti. & +, 235 Dll. App. 350; Enaus v. Southern 


Ree 
“teade tue doute has toet sigin to ake yreve suede stegsinsa ewok 
shied dant @ wf pregedate vowel of Yo hte undtte ao 5* ews 
so ie dvede exe geomet ofa eAz jeregninee oat eine bo tian ore⸗ 
borarignm etew hodest 3) doldw aeag seoete-~enetn: oa] rag be onet saves 
; sefetenes baw dogt to equud ogtel Yo newman yd 
sued tibbinn veh te aeulowtq edt mo tewweagm onl? hitalart 
seliaaieraes # bet ot ptaompo lame gal iowa ‘todas ogee Ye tah get ons 
os sof oF caw exert dads mtd Shot onw tabs tat tet sao dew a idie 
Tileatele jyabsoxT yalwoi Lor au⸗ auton od dud ea tens aa — 
ol? at Xooto'e xia tueds te éte ‘tsdans qed nea tuotg oat He be * 
wd ua gate ad tm slgwetsis bexseq m2 wast? 0 laxeves ud bw bas’ paler 3 
; eitomtnage Ohba hodiaw hae ob ta soonee ——— pepe 
of untreup @ tuode jeons vioroauo⸗ bo Ltan=o8 one ca éxers aatbainta | 
neve fhm ankseyetgnce elie banawes? seven td oxeng  teotete pe 
te sao asa Rests taw oda outs —* twos :teoree —— ; 
geuet eff ahintwo Bweto ot yt seen sew ef sto.stw hate .aeu0d sown <a 4 
#2 Saaiaga qu habwots bax sonst ont faves e nono! vom ‘ ron * ape ne 
‘baivont estat YritateLa dowatea ¢h jshiavue one moat xv0 “i —8 baw 
gattatauos ea beers one bediapesd Viisalase 10% apoaste 4 0h aha — 
—R —R&& sankoge tafe be owns ont fest basesodd Aarovee to : 
weve dave tt asst «inary tne solv a a 
eat te — i? to ao L2seup oad wom aatanag duos 18 — 
— ——— fon t6 tedtedw xo — D —— mitala ia tto⸗ eo 
Peqqua soonnd sane sts ons cade mozalge aui9 te ome ow y senetvad na 7M 















tote iBere — 








biod cide tanger soos east $x ounsi tunes out Xe zat 
#% datatwt malt ones auton aoos soangi igen — fanbuiet99 « . | : 
edt yd awoilo® wutat ban oidiasoq ceetat ‘esti sbi welt. i . a 

te 4 Bia a AIVeE : 


eved ton hwo spice envnteg bxbag te toa sm bun gebat be goer 
oeuan arnuknorg at ton ot okt baie suit sbodeqtot tae xideanenst 


Ra HH) hee a — 


— —— “GA ant avs saetcenazat ar ma ruta 
- Mtodtues vy syed | 5 ORR GA «LET ace + BD ae 















Ry. So., 245 111. App. 192; Kungen v. 111. Northern Utilities ce., 
258 Ill. App. 438; Seith v. Commonwealth Zleotria Uo., 241 Til. 
252; Hartnett y. Poston Store, 265 121. 332. The test is whether 
the party guilty of the alleged negligence might reasonably have 


anticipated the intervening cause ae a natural and probable cone 
sequence of his ewn negligenee, 

Plaintirf saye that he rests Aie claim solely upon the 
proposition that the Jury should ina — te deteraine 
whether defendant should have reasonably anticipated that a crowd 
might press against the fence #0 as to upset it. Defendant was 
not obliged to anticipate the onslaught of several theusand men 
against the fence, ond would not be expected to so construct the 
fence that it could withetend such enermous preseure, The fenee 
Was evidently built to prevent the santrance upen the presises of 
persons ehe had no buciness there. It was not intended te resist 
the charge of several thousand men meving sgainst it in « body. 
This was something no reasonable person could foresee or anticipate. 
We may regret the injury te plaintiff, «nich seems to have been 
severe, but he was the unfortunate vietim of the movement of « 
great crowd ee eager te secure employeent that it advaneed regard- 
less of any obstruction in the way. 

Casee eited by plaintiff can be readily dietinguished. 


O'’Comnor vy. Brower, 262 ihl. Aop. 621, involved the fatlure of 
defendant te return o promissery note, In Schwarg vy. Adsit et al., 


91 Ill. App. 576, defendant's building was damaged by fire and the 
Wallis left in such insecure and dangerous condition thet the wind 
biew them down. Jenkins v. Conl Company, 264 L1li, 233, involved 
the failure of the defendant to have a Linch-pin in one of the 
axles of his dump cart, causing the wheel to come of f and rel) te 
ene side of the coal shaft; the plaintiff, reaching into the shaft 
to recover the wheel, was struck on the head by a falling pieee of 


a 
aes 
ia 


BON 18OL amd LET BOR oA sel 
ovad yicanonaas tiyim soneyt igen hepe ita ons v eaten then, ‘ —J— 
aed ei¢dadeia Ene seingas & 88 ones pakcevtedat ast batentetona, 

ssenegilgen mo aif to. comeupes 
ole aequ yfolos miele 4 atnox oa fads ayes ib satals * 
saisteteb of best bacreg\gynd biuosia ret aad Fase norspugrone, 
bwore s bass hetaqiolens yldesoraex eved ¶ cuo cia tashng teh war's oat 
| one dap haes Tee 4 —J of su OB wens’? ont tealege aang ; aha 
se daeawody — ‘te difguelel ' 

| esd touttases oe oF betonase ad sae binot — (Soret out ts e 
— put .exwuaeny exoatom sous bastysitiw bivee Th pate 0 ene? 
te nos tuorg oda sous eoaet one gag as ye xa oF Aud —V —— a 

tatoos at pohassat fon esw ae erent seontaud on dea pate aro oryg 


— a ak ot tantege gulvem cine basauesdt Aogevor, Xo omre nae ws 


or Ted esha 


anod over of anes Motte ,Tivstele of yrmbad ead socaet tex a 
& to dtonsvom ed¢ Yo mltoly eteautsetan emt eae od ted sOTOVER 
—— beounvhy 7h dade Secayolque 9THOOR OF Tegne on Hwexe saety. 
Ver ot mi wobtouxtade yap ‘to eget. 
hodekugabsah ylkheor ed nee ‘Wiseigke ed betho gees’. 
te vwitet oii heviovns ,£8@ god .f£) S60 ,agwess .y semegd'S | 
— «7 axnnsio’ ol stom pxeeutacrs @ axutet ot iaaban' ted , 
os? foo etit YS hogemeh saw galbiind #*tacknetep Axq AGA LEE SE), 
hatw ext Sace moisivacy auoxeyaab bax oiwegenk sone ak Piel elie 


cot 


bevioval — ILE Aas — Seed oy eadaem emwoh malt mold. 
S42 “Lo oto ak ulg-tinadt @ eves of faghas ted acs to esetie? ond 


ot {for has tte emeo of ivesw ed galeum ,2tse qawh ald Yo ke. 
| ede wid aint —R Vt⸗ atacq sat — Lace saa to ae, me | 
te saete autuen s xv daea oss we sanage aay fone pes : 









ens ociw al tena wate wate tet aan , 
















- etugiatine 10 —— ‘Bived mpateq sidencoaet oR Bass 





rock or coal. It wae held, following S¢ 





So., suprs, thet an ordinarily prudent person could not have fore- 
seen that such an accident might be suffered by the phaintifrf. 
Fleming v. City of Coleago, 260 Til. App. 496, involved the presence 
of a nuisance upon a public highway. lone of these cases is in 
point. 

It has been reaveatedly held that the court may properly 
inetruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant when the 
evidence, with all the reasonable infermeesa that way be drawn 
therefrom, fails to support the esliegationes of the olaintiff's 


Voe, #45 G11. 148. 





declaration. We Bt 
Branshaw, 200 Ili. 425; Wa 


Yer the reason that there was no evidence tending to shew 












that the construction of the fence in question was the proximate 
eaune of the injury to pisintiff, the trial sourt properly in- 
structed the jury to find for the defendant, wid the Judgment is 
affirmed, 

AFFIRMED, 


Hatehett and O'Connor, JJ,, sonmaur. 








" ‘aatvoster bie s er * —* * 


— Sar ton pines —D —— ————— a feat * — * 
—— xa bore Tham es isyin ——— fous, tna oe 
eoneme se ast herloval ,0G% gy »ALE obs acai aide LK 
ai wh anean sesds ie enc -wrwstg bed otters 4 * now — 

* vtakog 

eienqatg Yom scaroo edt dene. blow Vitetangon moet | nad Lae 
a aoiw dnahasteb ene 70% dotbtey a a ad * i et edt to 
areih ed yam sade soonexo tad oideaneset eds adhy 490 mh by 
niaaia ta eat To anoksanesi ot, · rovo 2* porters 

ax aptbhoG 218) ALT HL , 92 » — mols 
BOL oLhE 808. , 05 | Let 
were of gahnad —— on eae y euectt tot mosner od wa x** — 
_Staslxong ot saw aptdoowp at —8 oF te — pa 

_ sah YleoqotG s1¥99 fakes oid (Midatece of Sawpat eae ‘te 
at tomapbet ont bus tnohao ie od? xot batt ot vw — ‘teh 


Be ae ar ae eh 





























* 
———— 7. ARRAS saan Orie aes Yee a TE 
¥ 9 ot ee * 
——— TER Tat a 
* Ls Sharan cy hace Sp i 
.THORGD es — voe⸗ bie ain 
# 
{ 
i bebas get. £4 
4 ae 
hee eee Jt aa oo? — fy P A 
eS Lan 
— he : ; PAU PSR Ste ae ae Rie ae Aasuaiun phe a 
Gh TN Ra RS aR. RG oh ba ae... 
& Sie oe — e.hien, 
gk » SCR — sia met 
J suse wate ac red 
-! it 
7 a 
* Pd abt 
9 how 7) Ft % 





36574 é , 
⸗ 
1 f 


MAURICR ELSIN, ae Trustee in 
Bankruptoy in the Eetate of 
TAREG HK, MORKON, 


f 


ay 


) 
) 
7 AVPRAL VROM GIRGULT 
} 


— No — 
— SD Ae 


Appellant, 
vs. 
JAMES KOPROE, SADIE MORHOR Individually 


and as Exeoutrix of the fetate of 
WILLIE WOODSOR, Deceased, 


Appellees, 27 01 J. ne 624° 


WR, PRESIDING JUSTICR MeSUNALY 
DELIVERED THE OPINICGH OF THE COURT, 


COUKT OF COOK COUNTY. 


Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptey of the estate of James 
A. Renroe, filed bis bill praying for a conveyance by the defend. 
ants of certain real estate located at 4652 Prairie avenue, 
Chieugo; it wae alleged that Konboe and hie wife had conveyed the 
premises to Willie Poodseon (mother ef Sadie Kenroe ond mother-in- 
law of James Nonrec) with istent to hinder and delay Menree's 
ereditors; that Aonree an? hie wife owned the property in joint 
tenancy from the year 1919 to February 15, 1996; thet on this 
latter date Konree wae insolvent and indebted te Sydney Rubin in 
the amount ef $560 for rental of a garage, and on that date the 
Henroes made the alleged fraudulent conveysnee in question te 
Willie Yeodson. 

Defendante by theiy joint anewer denied tiot the Kenrees 
owned the property aud denied making any fraudulent cenveyance; 
they ascerted that the defendant Wiliie Yeodson furnished the pure 
chase price of the property in question and wae the actual beng fide 
owner; that the @onroes held title te it in truet for her, having 
acted as agents for her in purchasing the property; that the Konroee 
teok title to the property without the knowledge er consent of 
Willie Woodsen and that the conveyance by them to her wae not 
voluntary but was made upon her demand. James Monres denied that 
he was indebted te Sydney Kubin in the sum of $500, and senerted 
the indebtedness was only $100 on the date allaged, 


ahs ⏑⏑ y ,,,.,—— aus SOLAN 
oben op Me, SRM RRE Ome "ad 


he —2 





Aire — 


CLVORIG Wa TANI R 
YTUIOS Boge Te PAVGO 


— —— 
— 
— 
| ⸗ 









— D ——— CoKkOM RIMAB ,GORMOM 8 at 
. ‘to etaded on8 to wbass ne Be 


be? 
teeLinggh 





“SSO.AL OY 


.oxtoo OE 8 ApTIGO ANT UVR — 

wane te. etutes odd to wosquasand ai eoteun? am smusmas tee ot 
“heated ods ud sonsyeyncs # 70% aekyerg, ati⸗ ⸗ta best nen aM 8 
ounpve ehxtart seap te bo tenes etasee, deer. —2 ». nina, 

ong boxyprnee bod etiw aka ban, ea aen done beanie, aww 32. —— 
“ab-redjon han ſsoxnun aibal to todtom) seadoo® of LLI¥ of anelmgng. 
a'serned yeah Das rehald of suatat sake {setaol agent re 
jutel al ystegotg e¢ heave otiw eid bar seamed tard ited bhexe 
abst am tad? ; MOL ,eL ytawtdel of CLL tesy od nett enpnnt,, 

at widuil yoabyt of hetdehal bue taeviosnl sev seme agah reste 












ait o¢eb add ac hes ,ogateg @ to isfuet tot 0086 Te taweme oui 





o? solteoue ak eomeys vane date Esibaswre't hep iia end then s om 
——— —* 

BootHol edt gent bolaeh soweae tad shod’? gea atasbae tet Gh 
jeomayernoy tuslvdnett yo gaksan bell bos yrteqgotd ode heave 

«tug ost bosieknwwt mosboo olLi2¥ Inwhae'teh oct sad? bedtensa godt 
ghit aced favtee on? anw han moliaouy a2 yoteqoug ede Te sottg ganda 
auived ,sed tot duuxd at $2 of of249 bied eeotmed ent tart ptenro 
meotaod eit sat? jyIrOqeTy ont yntaasiorwy a2 tod tot egange aa betoe 
to deeenss te eyhebrank oa suostt be Yixegotg odd of onthe toot 

tou aa Tek of ued? YS Counyovnoe ent tent Sar aonboo¥ — 

mau⸗ holueh cored saan honed t94 moge obom saw u 





hedtense ban ,Q08¢ To awe sid nt abdul yoaby? of heddebat maw af 


sboyotta edab off no COLE vine eaw saombeddonat ont 









The cause vas referred to a master in chancery, whe teok 
evidence and made his report recommending a decree in aceordance 
with the prayer of the bill. 

Subsequent to the taking of testineny before the master 
Willie Yoodtson died; her death was suggested and Sadie Monroe, as 
executrix, was substituted as party defendant and the cause was 
ordered to proceed without prejudice to the proceedings. 

Exeeptiona were filed to the master's repert ond sustained 
by the chancellor and a deeree wan entered finding the equities with 
the defendants and ordering that the bill be diemiseed for want of 
equity. Complainant appeals to this ceurt, 

The question presented is largely one ef fact. Willie 
Weedeon was the mother of Sadie Monroe, who was the wife of Janes 
H. Monree; all of these defendants formerly lived in Birminghan, 
Alabama, Janes and Satie Senreoe were married in 1915 and in 1916 
came te Chicage to live. James Monrose had worked as a Pullman 
porter at a eslary ef $30 a month and at the time ef the purchase 
of the property in question had no money and was contributing very 
little to his wife's support. 

Sadie Kenroe prior to her marriage had, by savings from her 
earnings and a present from her father en her marriage, accumulated 
about $1000 whies she brought with her to Chicago; after coming bere 
she continued to be employed, selling dresses, 

fre. Voodson remained in Birolingham, Alabama, for a tine 
after the marriage of her daughter; she was a woman ef meager educa- 
tion, by occupation a cook and general housekeeper, and kept rocmers; 
by this means she had in December, 1918, accumulated $1500 as her 
life savings. During the heliday season of 1918 Sadie Monroe 
visited her mother in Birmingham; they talked together about buying 
preperty and the mother told her daughter of her $1500 saved and 


said she would like to buy some property as she was getting old 


4 ie aa 
ae MN 


“ keot s¥ieoueds aS ¥sieam 4 OF axx oꝛox sam, © ws stPeaic it 
 bomebtesen ai sezeek # ‘gathoomnesex eeqes bha abas pha é Cah 2 at 
|  ££2¢ edd to veyerq ott staw 
_ tesaee afd oroied qaealses é te gaiveas anf of ——— ogee 
ae ,deximl siiet hae bagespuue eae deeb tod thal " Le , ‘7 
P -_ eevee aff baw dna bow Tob yiuag ta pibid Hie ‘die ry ——— 
-eyntbeeadid edd ef eodhutonq tuedttiw beenerg of an 
heaietoue bax étoqex ¢' tedeem ec) * (Bell) ots gupléqeond — 
div aekdiups oct jgalbait borisas ‘Gaw Seba # haa toLfeunnule vaig 
faae "et boos iuath ed trhe ete tak} yabrebke baw Stuahaa ton ast 
eee eee — — 
eRtLEW 256% 16 eke yLoguwt BD dodaweeey Hekeweip bur’ 9)" 




















beast ‘to Si2t ond enw ore ,botied otbad la Widen ile” te wane 





‘ daltgniarit of pevic qienarse? etaethoe'teh beodt to Lhe he 2 
asek Gd bane ated at Beivzam stew boraoa bibad’ kad somht” .amadad 
“iettw? @ bo bedkvow bad Soteol toast wrk ot ‘Wapiti’ Y Kalen 
westoreg oi to bak? oKd ta bud Hdnom o 06 Yo etelad & oh RAPRbY 
we — ane daw vae⸗ on bait nok teeip ‘ae ‘eetbeosq) on e 
wtreaqee ‘etetiv esd of ocbobe 
aed néxt epaivas yd had oyalexad ‘edt of solte eoune® ethas ” noyaad 


eae 


heteluausce ,eyaivies ti no teste't 20d mort sannera @ Dan opt 














aren — —E at tod doidw eoorg — if 


eonuerh gitifen ,hevotqm vd oF —— 

gat a tet jemi tA jnedgatorte ab hoalawey apthoo® lait” 
“mai ‘teas "Lo ikamow a Bow oie Xedigued ten to —*—— 
— ‘qed baw ,re0%ederwed Levene Sen Boos eet wit nbs 


ta ba QUOLE boletimvdow ,OLEL endiinget ob bed oe Bini GH Et 


“porno sibes Ofer to adwace Yubi tod oid pnteva © “sapaitvew 





* tubde tolsegod bodied void panagikinn ael ok Yoder —* heghad i 


“bine bovae O68L¢ vod Yo aediiguas Tee bie tadtt oat odtous 
m ‘bie sation i aaw odin ae — ane qud od adit Bw 


- 


ey Ee es me ee 









and could no longer work; the daughter suggested that they put 
their savings together and buy some property in Chicago, to which 
the mother snoid she wanted the property in her own name as she was 
afraid of her son-in-law, James Monroe; the mother gave Sadie her 
$1500 with instruetions to look inte seme property and te inform 
her mother. Gadie, upon her return to Chicago, inveatigated the 
property in question at 4552 Prairie avenue and wrote her mother 
recommending it as a purthase; that 32500 eash was required, end 
suggesting that she put her 61000 with her mother's $1500 and buy 
the property. fo thie Ara. Yoodson wrate that if the property was 
bought in her own mame it would te all right, but if it was net 
bought in her, Willie Feodson's, mame it would not be all right. 

The property was purchased in January, 1919, and $2500 
was paid in cash, subject te a merteage. The real estate agent 
who acted in the matter advieed them that since kre, Voodson was 
in Alabema it would be better for the Honrees te take title in 
their own names, otherwise they might have difficulty in getting 
@ renewal of the mortgage vith Ure, VYeodson away in the South; 
This advice was followed and title was teken in the name of James 
H. Bonroe and Sadie Xontee as joint tenants, Although it is 
etrongly urged te the contrary, based on misinterpretation of the 
testimony, it te clearly established that James Monree paid nothing 
on the purchase price, The chanecelier found that the purchase 
price was paid solely by money belonging to end furnished by 
Willie Yoedson, together with money paid by Sadie Monree for and 
on behalf of Willie Woodsen, and that James &. Menroe did net pay 
any money upon the purchase price of the property end scceordingly 
had ne interest of ownership therein. This conclusien of the 
ehancellor wae fustified, 

The facts call for the application of the well established 
rule thet where money is placed in the hends of an agent te buy 


“$ne Yoke $40) Sodoogyws toraQuds ode fasew Tayudd 
deidw od ,egaehdd at erteqeee sata Yad ban “wedse god agatyar wea 








saw oie oe osm ave Ted nt ytueqety ede ‘betheaw arte bhia 48aFom sad 
ted sibs? avey tedden edt jsoxa08 esnet jwaldd.ngd wed TO dlette 
Westitk ot hae ysteqory ehee ofat aoot BF amvidewtsent arte obete” 


adf Kodegltaoval ,oyasts) of wtotet tod dogu ja Rho Sreiitem wit” 


teitos tod oforw bke evneve elriowd 888) ta aoldetnp wt yoeagoty” 
‘Brie Rotiuger aw dene OO8TE Fede emadimg a on Fh GathnOmmoDeT | 





sd bite G68LG a xerdsom a9 Adtw COOL ‘tte ites. i wat 
ane yireqord oi? TE Lhd echew Aeenode eee aha ot Nee 


don aew at Ud gud tiple Lhe od’ phiew SE shun doe oe ak tase” 





—* ils od tom Biwow $4 euen at ae y waerew’ seit : 
 @GeRe ban , oLOL (vuednet AL Rewatotaq dae YPiedete of 





sea ye sates ieee ade Oga0esem a ey ‘font due Mend at ‘hing daw — 


saw ‘weebooW iam dénke dat! mad! Beabvhe totdek tak ‘nosed city 
ad @L32% wtod oF wdouned Odd xo weHted ad Ktdow OF doe 

gnkttey ak ytidelYiin eves tyke yous dutwredrs ,weiia awe athe” 
— eas of yews aoebooY lee dele onegiiem ink thes 











‘aeoul te cams ody of meded gew offl¢ dna Bewetict aaw bob 
ah JE eyuoddta jwenmmed ontot ex eddasl altel baa sora Ci 
“eit YS moltosorqtétalsia a» boead Chandos a8 a9 bogey yfgdorta’ 





ghbdson bing sormok agset sds dose tidedas Gitesia ak tt ã 
—o, Sut —— — — — vandterug oad 8” | 


Yd bet kewit tan ef galgadted yore we ‘ede tte BE, 
het 40% Couns BROS ya Bieg yodom AW toes egos jax 
yey Fon bib doxagk ER womel sad Kan dodboow ehLTIW 48 Btaded a 








eignibteose tat ytreqota edt “te eolte eaauerwy ont Roge alia : 
—— wotaiitohoe ‘sate Aa⸗roa⸗ qlanvawo Yo taoei at ‘om waa” , 






— el eat ale 2m 


hese figadds ‘tiew ead Yo hoktaed tage’ “bie tA thee WO Lil * sana J 
vives tno ge ae’ ahs oud a ‘poate al — * — — ae ‘ tet ; 





: a % iat 
, ‘ 





property in the nawe of a principal and the agent takes title in 
his own name, a trust resulte for the benefit of the principal. 
Dwyer v. O'Conner, 200 Ill. 52; Horton vy, Nelson, 145 ll. 886; 


Cookson v. Rictardeon, 69 f11. 157; Reeve v, Strawn, 14 Ill. 94, 
Sydney Rubin testified on behalf of coriplainzant that he 


leased « garage to James H. Konree in Bay, 1927, for o tere of two 
years; that during the negotiations for the lease lionree revresented 
te the witness that he was the omer of the oremises at 4569 Prairie 
avenue; that the witness veritvied this by the records in the ro- 
eorder's office, and relying thereon entered inte a written lease; 
the father of Sydney Rubin testified that he as present at the 
negetiations, and eorreberasted hie son. James Monroe testified, 
denying he made any representations to the iiubine that he owned the 
property. Some ef the tax billie were wade out in the name of Janes 
Bonree, Ye do not see how any such acts ceuld destroy the interest 
of Ere. Yoodeon, the real ovner. 

In July, 1910, kre. Yoodsen eare te Chicago; this was abeut 
eix months efter the property was purchased, Gadfle Acnroe testified 
she did not inform her mother that the title was net in her name for 
fear she would net understand, Ali three of the defendants cceupied 
one of the apartmentea in the bullding. Bre. Weodson testified that 
she turned the management of the property over te her daughter. irs, 
Weedson tock smployment in Chicago and for a time in Janesville, 
Wiseonszin. In anever to the question whether she expected to return 
te “the ‘aughter's home" she replied, “He, they Wereliving with me, 
They lived at my place.“ The daughter collected the rents of the 
other avartuente in the building and depesited them in the bank 
for her mother; she alse paid the taxes. firs, Yoodaen had « bank 
account in three banks and was owner of four shares of stock in one 
ef them. Heal estate agents collected the rente for awhile. It is 


not of contrelling importance that James Monroe signed the letter 


s 


-Sagtenizg ent to ih teaed eat 20% adivest taut? 4 , omen awe gaa 
1 


. 
at oiaks eas dange ont baw ——— * tes one oss at — 





5984, iki abs Mea seS oY woszee FRE .L42 GOB. 9; 

" ee ffl bh BEGETS oY _OeGE ives odds va eRe 19! 

® we tans tapatalgnes ta Tiassied ae best taee⸗ ahéntt — 

ows, ‘te ated ® ror sPhOL , yee at Seta .h east, oF evaxan pero 
hofnoaezqes, sorxnoat exeot oie wot anolielrogenindt, pabiak. Hat jeteny 
otitax’ sae te soaimig ed? to teave mit saw on feds saend te Sst bad 
a ont, ol? nk mbsooos otf yd adds Sodthvey senmtin edt teat. ounv⸗ 

— — nottize # etal betesos noeted? amixios baw. teh tke a! tebaee 





— —8 — ate — terse 
ied Seawo eat tacit aaldsil au⸗ oF (amo lenaiona get ae oom eof geityaw . 
sonst Xo omen ade al tivo ehom o1ew efits aut ett te omee .veTeggs 
dorsal ect yoxteub binos eton doye yas wad pee om gh OF wondes 

oy,  weawe Laer ae « donhoow rei ; 
suods ae aaa poqae kat os —J noaboo® weit, ter — ————— 
megora odd note automake 

rot sang at weal al fea saw ate hy ott tant xsuiten a rotau toa | bib sia . 
helquee Aatashas toh au? Yo oord? Lik ,bantewehau ton bfvow oda tae 

_ fa be dittass mantoo® ate, —— ent at Rovime tall. poe “i 1% ono 4 
rs st9tdguah xed of wre Veaoqerg | ads Se beeen a , 3 gate 4 

eLibreoant at sult 2 19% baw e018 ab — — saben 4 
axstet ef budoogxe oe iestede setiaoup oA? 92 Towne, — 

10m thw adv it otemmsd? 48" .bohignn ode * 

od ‘te atone ene baton tLoe tedeysab one eos, bevek 
ond one ah mori botlnoceh faa pains tut out * asad a⸗ bund 4 
dned # hat sonboo¥ atk .mexnd ot biog ose oda paeeddom aot ot 
sao at dota Yo ae toca m0% Lo xeawe saw bra wasted owrsg st ae : 7 — 

4 #2, +9 £dssta xo" arr ont boteestoo piange status Leoh itt te 


ie ae ONE ay cp ee 


; xestet ont ** soto’ eomit Gadd soastrognt —— 0 tom 















bolitgece sotnes abba. _sbansdorug, uae % 



















to the agents giving them authority to procure tenants, referring 
to the property as “my property." 

These facts indicate that ali three of the defendants treated 
the property as belonging te ire. Woodsen, That she turned ‘over the 
management ef the finances to her daughter only eonfirus her testi- 
mony to the effeet that she head absolute confidence in her, We do 
not s¢e how the werding of the letter to the real estate agente 
could have miesied Rubin inte thinking Henres owned the property, 
for that letter wae written abeut seven years before Rubin met 
konroe, 

In Pabruary, 192°, Mre, Yoodson overtiieard 2 quarrel between 
James Monroe and his wife Sadie in which Sadie wae heard te say to 
her husband that if he wae leaving, he should give back the property 
to her mother, “in her name beosuse it is here." Thereupon Ere. 
Woodeon asked her doughter what she ucant by theese words, and when 
told desanded the conveyance of the property te her and conferred 
with an attorney in regard to the same, and pureuent to thie demand 
the premises were conveyed to Her Ter G1 and other good and value 
able consideration. | 

In Behreng vy. Steidley, 198 111. 3¢5, the property was con- 
veyed to the husband by hia father-in-law for the benefit ef the 
wife, in 1830, and cighteen years later the hushand conveyed it te 
hie wife; oreditors seught to eet thie aside as a fraud. It was 
held that the land equitably belenget te the wife although the 
legal title was in the husband, and that if the equity of the wife 
ie “firet in time, first in right and first consummated by conveyance 
vesting her with legal title, that title will be sustained.* 

ke argument ean be built upen the supposition tnuat re, 
Woodson held out James Monroe as the owner cf the property or per- 
mitted him te act so ae te give third persons eredit on the strength 
of such alleged ownership. Eres. Yoodsen did net know that title to 
the premises was in the nase of James and Sadie Konroe and not in hex 


amixzetex ,sisaneds wiueeig of Ylirediue made gaivig etusge edz oo 

| Biles. “sqiuomotg YR" ne Wetogete St oF. 
botnet. — * en? lo sews iis tad? eteodbad etpet. ered?. i 3 
ont reve? bomtkt sith tack  .omehoeW orl of, eityse led aa ysueqor sti 
aisaed tod aaxlinge Une Wwitgueh Test of aoganatt pe? Ro saemeganam 
oh ol anal Mt @pnNht'tns stwhenda how ade desid se0T tp, ant of ynom 
git ge statee daey oct, of vebtet edt ‘tw gabbror ost, wot me 7 oa 


si 


fea nidud gro'ted siany coves tucds aeboiow eae ragted sede tok 
aeewted Iewiaup « hunetiave coubes® .02k .WhOL pgsesedahal «(oo poo 
ef gow of Sime onw ohhed doide ah site gti add hoe eotnel somal 
Cieqete e8o seed avi Bivdde of ,yaivert aew ef OL — 
PER goquetem? “erat at th soxeved omen tad af" yaedtom aed ad 
iy bee ehiow seers qd deo m ede  dadw tetiguah vod basing 7 hage 
 berteTnes bas ved ef YttDgdtG aut to woneeraeD, 887 ponmosad died 
bowmeh whit of saswatsg bas , oman eff oF dagen ome vxoaꝝroaa ae dd be 
stig? ban boop eedie has LG t0% aad ot poynvaes 9108 aoakaotg edt 






















clboe “edw erembote-ane, 6021180 00k: cpethiediices ome aon 
SAME TAter ume en + oben , 
“ad gh boyarnee hardens! odd wt0l atesy aeoseyto Sue: 0684 ab gear 
pew al . bane? @ o@ eblew olat foe of taycue etedibeso. yolky ead 
odd Mgwerltia @ite vst ot bogneded Yidad lupe baw. ould asla bEosl 
pithy eft To vetege ec 12 tact dom yhondawd odtab aaw sath — — — 
onayevinne Ys bedonauanoo teak? daw daigtx at —— — yombs at aua aꝛt ot 
*Rendovaue of LLhw olds. damit 01218 tego ekw wed gokdgey 
.o1K 98nd aobtivoqque e4% cegu dilud o¢ neo Suempase eM. steer . 
“184 To wrogoty eM To temwe oft as eotaod somal two bind apadoe 

Aagaosin 912 Mo Dtbore anoexeg Maid evda MA. A an 4 
of L282 fads vomk Jom b1b meadog¥ .oeih ahi fom te 
ta ab ton han posnok sthad hue somal 2 onan 938, ‘ah oan sped nt 







AS soon as she Learned of thie she demanded and received the cone 
veyance, 

In Hay, 192%, Sydoey Rubin gat a judgment by default 
ageinet Janes I. Monroe for rent, and in September, 1979, ecught ¢e 
garnishee the rerits from the property in question; ire. Voodson 
filed an trtervening petition in thie case in which she esnerted 
that she beoame the owner of the premices on February 13, 1990, "by 
purchase.” This wae a proper forms in which to assert title in the 
action at law and it does net contradict ber equitable interest 
prior te receiving legal titie, Gne is not estopped in an equity 
proceeding becuuae he pleaded only a legal defense in an action at 

CG., HLH Thi. Appe 75. 





As & general rule, if one reeeives iand, not by desectit, it may be 
Legally deseribed az a purehase, Whitenead on Illinois Real Prepe 
erty, voi. 1, see, 30. 

Complainant makes the point thut where several peraons con- 
tribute to the purchase price of reali agitate, in order that a ree 
sulting trust arise it must appear that the sums severally contri- 
buted were for some definite or diatinet part ef the estate; citing 
Rinesh vy, Kinseh, 34% lil. 446, and oiher cnaeos. That case arose 
out of a contest over reali estate between the bolder of the tithe 
(the widew of the former owner) and hig ehildren by a fermer wife; 
the children claimed an interest by virtue of a series ef scontritu- 
tions made by them, generally indefinite im ameunt and extending 
over a period of time, it was there keid that a reaulting truat 
@cen not arise by reason of payments wade not coincident with the 
purchase of the property and fer ne distinet interest or definite 
part of the estate. in the instant ease taere is ne contest between 
the holder of the titie, James 4, Menroe, and irs. Yoodeon; he dows 
net claim any interest in the property, seliner does Sadie queetion 


her mother's ownership, aid it was established that ure, Foodeon 


* 
ation “Gi? bovienest Rew Sefacsed wre ‘etay te" ‘henmast sal “2” * a 
siusvted yf dmoubet @ toy uldwil — eter wai ‘ay 
pb Fityken | CHeL todmitqed AE bas ptder “Yet seraail” Smite 
oT ie ae ae ed ‘wort staer odd eodata m : 
‘petresse ede Nota ak seas ett ni aol ytzeq galdevresnt ee pa ERE 
qe" WHOL 2E yrOWAEE ao woe iezy aA To eave edd omtand’ ote sald 
ad AP OLS22 Fvedda OF Motiv af wret a9¢ex1q B gew otee « dled 
tuaweral widetiugo wen tolsereaes sod woh $F Baa wal on wektom | 
“tiage we ai heggoses fea at om) .eLthd Layok galvieows of sered 
te Golisee as al gaan Ted —— —— 
a qa £2 BLO OD tay Ly cae se gagensy © 
ed ‘an OF , Sivoeoh ye Goa band eevivees wae YE wep —— | 
-qou% fae whonilst do bawto gtd —— & @% badiapan’ | 
, oh Shea ye oe a ea a: ag ie te oe 
-a608 enowtog Caxsved dresty suds gittod ooid antinia’ ndiltinsgmet”°! O° 
‘se 2 fade rebte ct jecedne feet Yo eahug Saadyaug ony OF viet — 
abuined ileteves erwe eX? godt aneqae guna FE eee Peurd gat fue 
gitiie yeteise eos ‘to tueq tontiets te o¢taltod walla ——— 
avout gees YedT Leseeo tedde Bus ,Obd .20T O88 (deemed | 
ofste ovis te tebLedt of) neowres ateses Laox Seve Vessnsd perry 
jotiw te wonky oi)" | 
auntintnod Yo aetree'w to oveuty: vd feorstat me bolatay ene Laie "sit 
gather sxe bas Crom ad etlaltebar ylieteany and yo ‘ve nin 
“Saunt yaks tener & tans hie exed? waw gl ‘somike” ‘te ‘pertee 2 ve 
edt tiv tumbioales tea dhaw abavmyeg Yo ‘moaned Wr ealta em aeob” 
o¢ialtoh to teorssat soutseth ox wt bine’ ‘ ehroqote oud to eek thy” 
aeewied taetncs wi eh xed? saan hii ‘odd wk odedde wad “to ail 
aseb ee fadahouW Jail bam Veatitel uP “eae bd ‘te oo i 
mahbined btiot aboh tice toa seetegotg ‘ott Gk Paotesad ye 
































fact 


aioeboor . te beni * ——— enw “Pa baa, | | 
. weie pass Tk eae A, ehh ene 9— sere ayer 





Would not invest her money unless title would be taken in her 

name, The oreditore are not interested in whether Sadie loaned 
$1000 to her mother in order to wake up the cash payment. Tne 
relationahip ef the parties is merely a ciraumatance which may 
excite suspicion but dees net, alone, stount to preef of fraud. 
Garrett vy. Garrett, 345 111. 577. The shonceller was justified in 
finding that the evidence failed to prove fraud in the inetant ease. 

Another obetacie in the way of granting the relief sought 
by the bill ef complaint is, that although it alleges the ingel- 
veney of James ii, Honroe on February 15, 1999, the date of the cone 
vVeyange to dra, Yoodsen, there is mo preef ef thie. dsyteey Rubin 
testified that en thie date Jame Konroé wae indebted te hie in the 
amount of $6840 for rent of a garage; Monroe denied ihet he wae ine 
@ebted to this amount but admits an indebtednese ef about $100, an 
afalyvie ef the testimony indicates that Honree'r version wae cere 
reet. 

Complainant cites the fliing of Kenree'a petition in banke- 
ruptey about eight months after the conveyance te Bre. Woodson. We 
eannet preeume from thin that imsolveney existed eight mantha be- 
vere, The burden of preef is on the one eleiming inselvency to 
establish it, Wilison v. Labhart, 269 Lli. Apne $3. Other points 
are made, in exececticonelly weil written briefs, whieh we do not 
deem it neceaeary to discuss in this opinion. 

Upen the entire reeord we are convinced that the changeller 
properly sustained excestions to the waster's rapert and ordered the 
@iamieeal of the bill. The decree is therefore affirmed, 

APFIREED, 
Batehett and S'Cenner, J7,, concur. 


a 


hectic F ty eee 8 guys 
“ged ad moted od bavow ofthe ‘eaciny — ‘ted yeovat tos mtu 


bse Bi cer 
hemes ethet sedede ai Begeotetal fen ore mio hho edt somes 


ant “itemise dies eat qu sian of Hobso ab sedton tad of 900K 


i aR Be ee 
‘ebm sind Baw edrntacorts s vfexia 8 sotto ‘eae te aidenotiason 


buat’? 26 teotq of —E a dea anet tad ‘moto heews ot home 

— ent ee Rebar 

ai be ltloaut — ioifsonssds oat  . te saat ne ao it | 
eri 


Stine Yaedeat ond ak Svat avexe ‘of be iat —— nt ‘test ‘patbal 
ORES 





‘Gdlguoe Yetiox odd ands mary ‘to yew ‘edt ab Slaatade wosgons 
Be ee £7 


afoeni 4% aegeiia th sywadtia tads ant Satsiqaes te “Ets ood we 


eo ae ee 
enon ‘ett Ye etab oat .ehGL * Tienda m0 oor no⸗ * — te youer 


Seok Tye Sere eee 
‘abel yeorteyl ‘akat Ye teste on at ⸗ — ge 


edd ab mtd of bo dcebd? sae ‘sotto ‘aenst stab abe nd ‘fas 
ime ree * va 


ont haw ad tade ‘be bab poresit reais rt * ‘tne at 08$ te tavome | 

on iB Laas 

ah aay jueda: ‘Ye desabeédehat na asiaba tud smwoas abds of * 
Pes yt Af. Pe. aay yr 

ton Sa — 3 *eorsol saat * vrwenttao⸗ te etey tana ' 


— eee ee eve 3B 
* ~ a ¢ J — 





2 ihe i 


— eee ee ee Ul ee) ——— 


otaed nh ane at aotuell ‘to gabist ‘oud otis — —— ‘ae 
. gee ite. eae ‘athe San 
* saahoot —*8 ee — ————— ‘oat —— saison * i. se * 






1 
J 
43 
EE 
af; 
a5 
2 Ge: 
:& 
73 
Pie. 
itt 


weit guiltt 4 odd xo —— ‘te — net ' 
— y Spee Pe . i 
enatog — 20 sea tet ob. sun obra | 


Yo) Wig Ie wey) 
Pou * ow — cats bed aaddicw ttew ‘chtaaoloeans ah, 


Vt 
alice wee nt ees ate 
snokntoo ands nt asuoeth 4 ‘Ulsrnoven 2i apeh 


‘ 6 — 
solibgiads ons Fest beoatvace. ote. oe apes “oxldad * ao qu 

me te DARKE & MORE 

— doꝛet ao base sxoqox alcetean eat of soi sqeone boutasane efreqozq 


jaeee yer warn site ty 
sheared tte srotorett * —— ‘oat ats ame to Leen 


| i + fd oie WS hoe eee SE OMT Ts sews 
prin $9 eg! 9— enw 548 as ° as * er.’ Pee , 
— —— ano·⸗ ‘haa : 


—2 
—R J Hin seer 














uae we ae — ——— ee —3 all 


— 
fie 








3658) 4 4 f 


J, J, STAKLSY end CHARLES J, ‘y fain 
STANLEY, Voepartners, Doing —— 
ae J, J, STANLEY, f 
Appéelisnte, i 
APPEAL FROE GIRCUIT 
vs. 
COURT OF COOK COURTY. 
ELHER G. OLSOK at al., 
Aspelleess, ) 


270 1A. 624° 


RR, PAMSIDING JUSTICR KeBURELY 
DELIVRARD THR OFPIMION CF THY COURT, 


Complainants sppeal from an order dismissing their bill 
whieh sought to establish a mechanie’s lien, 

The bill oleimed $2506 ee the boalanee due on a contract 
for plumbing werk inatalled by commlalnants on premises be. anging 
to defendants, The matter was referred to a master in chancery 
who reported, recommending a decree for complainants; subsequentiy, 
en August 12, 1932, a decree wae entered overruling the exceptions 
and finding the couplainante were entitled te a Lien; on Getober 
7th, at a subsequent tera ef court, the Chaneeller, Judge Huge 
Frieid, gave the defendants Leave te file their petition seeking 
te vacate the dearee; anawer to the petition wae filed and en 
Gatober 15th the Ghancelior entered an order vacating the decree 
entered August 12th and set for hearing the exceptions to the 
master's report; December Sth, after hearing, a decree was enteral 
finding the equities fer defendanta and the bili ef complaint was 
erdered dinuissed. 

Upoa this appeal complainants e¢hallenge the power of the 
gourt te vacate the prier decree and ales saeuert that the eenclu- 
sione of the Chaneeller upon the seritea are not justified. 

The faets relating to the erder vacating the 4deeree are 
ae foliows. Gm February 158, 1932, Judge Klarkowaki ordered the 
hearing on the exeeptions to the master's report placed on his 


contented metion calendar to be heard in 4ue course; no move vas 








— ——— won saan 
| vrauos —— % reueD | : 





‘pgo. 40 oes 


BOEPEUS OATCERRAE Me 


» PRUOD att bd enna BBY CAREY ESE 
has Moat —R& —ED— ow mor Las que egusndetenod ‘ 59 I 


* ee 


wie bd st olaasson a Seb idagas of aequon Hos 


“eadeded a6 ao — © od beltline orew adaa a ve 





oaun eybet te Lieena® ond ,fauea Ie ated smnupondua * an 3 — 
aalions aol? tsaq ‘thedd ofh2 08 evens atanbsoteh, one avey, — 


— —— 
bas Seti sew aolihiog ond oF 9 wan isetneh ond stoner — 


eexead aul gulteoay Mebte mw hexose Tot feonasd one ment nod: oo 

edt of anol} qaoxs of gubteed x02 ton ‘bas Ags — tenga — 

wate dale lqnos te Aahs edd bane etaubna'ten x08 aetstupe oad * that 7 
— ——— beasbae 

ene Ye r9Wom swt ogaeiiade strantotqave faeces “edut aati } | 

“‘attkomoo wid tec3 done onle baw ea x098h nolig ass snes of true, 

boPtiteut, toa ou eaiten off woqs xotioonadd ons te 

ote sei9eh ond. aitiiacay tehxe silt od dai aato⸗ vee. ot wep 

— 

843 horebto biewoseus Lk sphul eee Ah venue rm) ‘awodat Le 


aha ao i henats srenen i —R oats as ane) geen etd ab madres 








— 9 


tte Ja naw eetoeb a ——— dt xodta ase eo i 












ae avon on alah oxi Fons base it od of tabaetao aig hton ——— 






made by either party to have this aet for an early hearing and 

it was still on the contested motion calendar when the court en- 
tered the summer vacation, which began July 18th; Judge Wiliiem 
V. Brothers was assigned to sit as a judge to hear amergeney mat. 
tere for the week beginning Auguat Sth; Auguet 12th a solicitor 
for complainants appeared before Judge Brothers and srerented 
what purported to be a notice ef a wetion to hear the exeertions 
to the master's report, served by mailing; the alleged notice was 
eaddresued to C. 1, Langbeia, Jr.; the sclicitors for defendants 
entered of record were Otto T. Langbein, Jr., and i. A. Holeon, 
vr.; the affidavit of mailing stated that the soliciter for com- 
plainants served « copy of the netice upon the solicitors at 
their reapeotive addresses “by placing a true and correst copy 
thereof in a stamped, addrezzed envelope and denesiting same in 
the United States mail at 33 South Clark atreet, Chicage, 11144 
mois, om the 9th day of August, A. BD. 1932," KBule #22 of the 
Circuit court prevides is part that when netice is given by mail, 
the motion en presentation te the court must be accompasiied by an 
affidavit of the person who mailed the netics, stating the time 
and place of the mailing, “tegether with the complete addrese 
appearing on the envelope.” The affidavit of service failed to 
comply with this rule age itt did net purpert to give the address 
appearing on the envelope. In hie affidavit eupporting his peti- 
tien to vacate the deeree of August 12th, Otto T. Langbein, fr., 
a@tated that he had am offiee in Koom 1064, 108 Seuth Latalle 
etreet, Chieage, at thie time, and beth he and his effice agac-~ 
Ciate made affidavits that 213 of the mail delivered to the ef- 
fice wars inapected and that no mail purperting te be a notice or 
aequment in the case was ever received, Rule 26 of the Cireuit 


court prevides that ne motion will be heard or order made without 


notice to the opposite party, with certain exceptions not material 





Ye oe oe 
er 


has galtaed yitee me tt dee whee wvast o “eae ‘reat be x shan 
-0@ desoo add oodw qabasies action eataotnes end ae tthe nave at 
ae liieY eghel ;96k viel eayed telhdw ,aekiaway ‘act ad? boxed 
otom Youeytewe teed of egbut a oo Fhe of —R ew ersdiord * 
tofielica a daif dewgua ath sewed grtintaed done ot +0 ates 
» bptaeoete baa RtauTosd oybus Gre led botasecs asmmcielemoe sot 
Pa ae ond twas ot Botton a Yo solide a od o? bettoqxuq sadw 
gaw aoizen bexeiia ede tendtion ‘ed bev —E a'toteca oat oF 
ethehe teh tot wxotinites odd 7.40 ,atedgnad Jf .9 oF heneethhe 
,fon tod .A ou haw /.2t | dhedgaad J? edro er9 brow ty Retetes 
aoe 10? toffelion eis dad? botaze yubttad to Sivan te odd 7.2% 
“Sa etettotion ea? ages solten eA? “To Yeon —EX 
‘‘Yqoe fosties haw outs # gator fe ys Peurerkda ovlsoounse eteds 
gt omen ypaitieoush baa sqelevas Beowmrhae bogota W ak Toetedy 
eRILT ,oganidd (feaide ixard woe 6 da than weseed sad bad aie 
gee ‘te ER enum © Seer’ ce LA Sedugua te tab 420 oe He ‘akon 7 
Lhe yd novid et solioa aedw tad gtsq ab aeblvete dtvdo ‘gtaorko 
a yd botuigmoson of Saust duitoo odd of sibktaddensxe Ae Hotiom Hat 
oats oot yatiates \soldon ond BoTlem ode medio suk Tot Evabr tte 
geethba efsiguoe od? Adiw tedtogod* jgultiaw ale to voalq Bae 
at Belial oulvipe ‘ro ttvabita off *leqetevas edt ad gabtosdde 
ggeshbe 42 aviy OF Fuaqiue fom BIS * ea ofer ala Atiw — * 
shieq ald gaitcouqie d2vabitys abd al .eqete¥ne edd a6 galt 
,-0t ,mteodgnad .T 0990 ,Md8L teuqwd ‘to sorped OH) odeoay of Halt 
oLiaied dived OL ,d00L moot ad sortie ak hail of bad? botate 
 Joses epttio std bas od dtad bus oid edt ta ,ogadlad’ ssetie 
eto wt? 99 botavitod thom oft 16 tls Sade adlvabiria open Sabo 
40 galsom a od of gakdroqiig ‘thaw ow sons ‘hae Bosse anit aaw solt 
divorld anid To G8 ofvh chevtened tove kaw deen ests Al dadmbdd 
tuodale oham tabt0 <0 bused ed ffi noktom on “galls ackivetg * 
sapidgeoxe atatase athe young aa · dao st “ed — 








here. 

Although certain decisions ere said to suppert the conten- 
tion that a chancelior cannet vacate a decree after the term at 
which it wae entered has passed seve on w bil) of review or a dill 
to impeach the decree for fraud, yet the facts in those cnses ean 
be distinguished from these in the inetant ease. In Iosetti Bren. 
ing So, v. Soehler, 290 111. 369, the order vacating was made pur- 
suant to a motion to the effect that the selicitor for the other 
party hed by misrepresentation procured the court to enter the de- 
eree; on the face of the record the decree appeared to be regu- 
larly snd properly entered, Eut whatever expressions may be found 
in the cpinions in guch eases, the right of the court te veoate a 
decree after term time, under such cirounstances as we have here, 
has been definigely settled in Korth Avenue Bidg. Assos. vy, Huber, 
286 111. 375, and Kemper v, Weber, 316 111, 494. There, ss here, 
& petition was flied te set aside s previous order dimissing the 
bill for the reason that no notice was given to the other party, 
whieh was against the exprese rule of practice of the Circuit court. 
in the former case the court said: “It requires no further argue 
ment to show that plaintiffs in error wern not beund by euch order 
ef court oid that it was euch om order as might be set anide at 
any time during the term vaen made, or st a subsequent term, where 
mo disesvery of such order is made by the parties injuriously af- 
feoted thereby until such subsequent term,” These decisions are 
eonclueive, and Judge ¥riend properly set aside the prior decree 
of August 12th. 

Defendants were erecting a building containing four stores 
and sixteen apartments and the contract for plumbing, gas fitting 
and sewage was let te <compisinants, - the work to be done for 
$7000; compisinants have been paid §4500 of thie and seek a lien 
fer the bolanece ef $2500. Defendants assert and the chanceller 


saptao gst Steqqus ef bee ote enokadeed atadtes mquedtha .. 5) 
3 mie) edd dot in eox9ed @ Bison soanae Tolleoaade « gaat mode 
iLié a 20, Mivet to ifhd # a9 avee boseaq Gad bonetae, sow of,200 bw 
neg anges gemi? al atoot odd sey ,buet? cot eetosh a coogqmd. of 
yf, A .enee Imetems ott oh oneds mort bededvoaiteth-ov 

<0 ghee sew gattseav tebig od? , O36 Lf 008, staliees ee) sab 








‘tedea edt 200. 209 hoe O84 Madd 290% ost OF weltom & wh dmend 


-6h. 082 tpdma of faua9 oA¢. boaweote molietaoeetoetels yf bed geang 


~uyet ed of hexseqye seT29b ost Brooet od To Hos edt mo pom 
hayot sf yaa saolenerqns Kovedadw suk. .dewrtes Clssqete haa yfret 


Sta evedt oH ee sented emuotio ave vents mene: yore — 


— — Mb ptt B48 — hata M aT —J | 





od? gatesisalh tehae sughvetg a ehiem dee oF SaH2 2 ae, mole iveqa 


eitmg wade odd of cael, wav Hebied om tue MoumNT ode 1eT Lhe 
-trupo dhuotkd off to oektiaetg. to olet wpongee oad dealegs enw dotde 

oingte todd tw oh aorlupet Fh". shhes 208s ost econ woot odd al 
tobte. cna yd baved Jom stow torre a) STRldulely tadd voce ot Stem 


te whine 208 94 Figia a6 TORI uN Moms aa aL dad? han sawOD te 


otedw .ared dooupeadue «. te 4e .ohew meay ered edt gattwh emt yee 
“ts yLewoltuped aeldteq eat Yo ohom ek vada down Te yroveowth ex 
ote eapigtonh eaed? “ ane? soaupnedve done Loan ydeunds bedee? 
soreeh taltg ot shies ton ylzegete bariat eghet daw carteutenee 


MOR Peugud te 


astota — ———— 4 — STH eaaauardesggsgs 
Balti? amg ,gaidauig To% toatdags oc? hte at ai min un cie soetxhe hae 
_ tel wenh od oF Anew ost = ,eommtiaiques oF —— 


mob 8 deat dae eldt to OWRAd Diag ased evad ataants iqam 
AoLivonaite wif bas sense atashaereG HORSE Ye eoagtod 
co tem Soa WER LOE SPL a 











4 


fourd that the last iaber and material were furnished in November, 
1925, and therefore, as complainants’ bill wae not filed until 
Bareh 20, 1931, it was mot in compliance with the statute which 
required suits to enferee mechanic's liens to be commenced within 
two years after the completion of the work, Para. 9, ch. 82, 
Illinois Statutes ( Cahill.) 

Complainanta insiet, however, that the last work was on 
March 21, 19°99. an mmployee of complainants test fied that he 
aid some work on that date; he had no independent reesliection of 
the date but based his teatiweny upon a ticket or wtatenment he 
made at the time; this witness testified that he installed some 
Closet eeate, fixed some sieve pipe ond seme faucets; the ticket 
made by him gives an itemized statement of the work and shows that 
six faucet washers were inntalled which sest two cents, and one 
steve elbow which cost twenty cents; the statement does net apeeify 
any closet seats. Gn the other hund there waa abundant evidenee 
that the work was eompleted in Sovewber, 1948. Five wlinesses 
testified that the work wae checked up at this time and found com- 
plete; from Oetober 22, 1923, te February 16, 1929, thirteen of the 
sixteen spartments were rented and eocupied by tenants; a report 
of the Bureau of Gater of the City of Uhicage shows an inepection 
of the work in December, 1928, as completed. Complainants gave a 
waiver of lien in Auguet, 19235, for the installation ef all the 
work exeept attaching fixtures. It would hardly take to the fele 
lowing March to attach the fixtures. if complainants! employee 
414 any work on Marck 21, 1929, it was of such am inconsequential 
theracter thet it could met be considered ag an exteision of the 
time for completing the work. In Alexander Hendry Co, v. Mooar, 
242 Til. App. 816, it was held that such trivial and inconsequen- 
tial work could not be “tacked on” ae part of the original contract, 


citing mony cases. See also Schaller-Noerr Co. Ye Gontile, 153 


W 


stedanved af Sestetene’t exew Jaliesam' bas todad seat odd tadt hoot 
 fdtaw dete. Jen sow {Lid tedapabekquoe ta ~orebateds fam ,BSeS 
Sobiu sfetote ot? Adhv senadiqnos af tem anv 1 .fB OL OR * 
ad aid de teamenses od of anakt at altadosm ooto las of otha AoTlapet 
QS .fo -.% witet <tuew od? ‘to weitelgoen odd t9%'te anid 
SH Bete (ef Sdtind) metatar® ote “ee 

ao ase tor toot att godt ,tovewedt ,solest atmantademed c“c | 

oh tals beliigesd atnantnkquen to eayelqam a4  » RL — 
Ro solfeslioess tasbacgebal en bet od jotah tans oo A20W amon. bkb 
df Saemmsete 9 sodedd & sogw yYooulsee? abd beand dud oted edt 
(Cnet beLLatesd e6 Jade boise? aseatin ahit jomks odd 2a obgm 
 tekold ast jadeown't omen de egie evete emo hoxtt «atone sooete 
fad owes bas avew os Vo srmomsads. dedangd, — — 
one bee ,agang ow? sage Soltw Peliadend ete% gusdeme toguel ate 
Yihoogs som aeob Jagmergte, oMs j[edawo. yIaowd Feoo doiriw wodke onnge 
aombive gaabasdtea sev exnpad bier aecidg anf wd, -Btaos senolo, ene 











ascetaite evil .6HOs .redaeyow at bedesampo now Aton oct dat 


( witoo, awe Sew) omks whis ge qu dedoads. sew. anon get ieaidninsd 
add Ye avetulls ,@RGL BL erRwide’t of \OSOL RS wodored. mort p s 

| #hOqet 2 Gatuaaed yi teiquese bax betann gxew age % ; 
Aeliooquat as awards epeoldd Lo ysi0 edt Ae tedall, ko — 30 








ob aveg attenletquas ,insoiguee es ,O6@L ,xHdargot mt, aiew oft 26° 


Ott the Ke wedtediezank edd xo ——— 
wis? off af oded ylbtos bfvew 2k. .wexudadd gece ¥ 
 geyolgae, etaanlelgmop LL .maxwdeh’ sate — tora antros 
fatinevpeencent my iowa Te sew 92 ,02RE , 28 feta ne siren yme hth 

Û so Ram ON Ae ge ER, ON 
sheer wale, gatdetqmen tet one 











foettnen Latkgite od? to Jang an —E —B mane 
oxie Got .e0ems. 





Ill. App. 464, where it vas held that putting up « wire sereen 
efter the contract had been substantially finished should not be 
deemed effectual to revive a lien; ond in Morgan vy, O'Malley Lbr. 
Go., 7 Pac. Rep, (2nd) 252, it was held that a building, as respects 
time for filing liens, ie cempleted when the contraetor has gub- 
etantielly complied with the terms of his sontraect, and the later 
work of supplying trifling itema will net be considered as pont- 
poning the time limitation for filing liens. See also Grettenberg 
C Goliman, $ Pac. Rep. (2nd) 944, and Gow State Lbr. Co. y, Witty, 
37 Idaho, 499. Matot v. Barmheisel, “22 [11. Ape. 489, cited by 
Complainants is net substantially in cenfliiet. The ehanceller in 
the inetant case was fuatified in finding that Zarek 2, 1929, was 
not the date upon whieh the last material was furuished or laber 
perforned, 

A fact which might explain the delay in the filing of come 
Pleinante’ bill ins that defendant Clean gave complainanta netes 
ageregating $2800 secured by a trust deed om other property; dee 
fendants claim this was accepted ae payment of the balanee, but 
complainants acsert it was given merely ae security. Appure tly 
this wae treated by both partice ae payment. In Kareh, 193i, 
Charlies Stanley, one of the complainants, told ene of the defend- 
ants that he had sold these notes te the bank under a guaranty, and 
that an the interest due in January had mot been paid the bank was 
Calling on him for payment under hie guaranty. 

Hewever thie may be, the 5111 was properly <iemisesed fer 
the reason that it wae net filed within the statutery period of 
time, ond the judsment of the Cireult court is affirmed, 

AFFIRMED, 


Matehett and O'Connor, JJ,, coneur, 


—J 


ewes athe ao ee gadting tadd bled. sew OL ornale BBD Gh ofST 

ed goa Sduoda Gorelall yllaliandadus need bod somntags eno sede 
Rid meiled! o 7 amazed aL hue paoll » elves et fautee tie bemeb 
Sineqner af .galbilud o Inds died gam gt ,98S, (hat) .qoA .00%) weed 


~duy aad tefeasiaes oA asdn betolqeoe of ,emedt gedit «0b ene | 
total edt bas ,foextnor ald to emus sat dike behiqnon yitetiaate | 
-to0g ae hotohienco od gan ifkw semcst qalitied gabydaqwe te drew 


Bietaniiese ostie eof .anald gabLi't 16% mobdatiott outs oft yatineg 


MALEE wVnBO ntdd m9adl wed dos dhe (hat) .qok .o08 2. tumbled ay 


Ud Detio , Gib eqgd tO Sf ,fentediere! y gotet ..08d ootebl os 
ak tollovradea eff  tebLiacs oh yliabineteadue tea ab agne ate Squao 


sew , 82h .ih sigue dade gatbakd at pat isewt, qo mneee Aaah a 


tedet to besiotouwt eew dottatas deal ets colds mone. atab 





~eop Ig gailid oy a2 goleb edt atalqne duighm sieldw toa Ao orsde 


aeden atuaciadques avey aoadd daehomteh Jac? ak Lid ‘etmalade a 


ooh ;yixeqetg tats ao heh gawit # Yt heiwnee OHSS ha tans ian⸗ 
tad ,eoended @Hd ko enagag as Aetqnses saw abd minke Ami 
Usvetogm .Ysitueee ca ydexem govig sew at geonem etc 
ALL pte ted al .iomagng an ao biiag diad yi hetaese mae 
 shoeteb sco le ene blot ,atasclaiquen edt Yo eae ,yeduade eedradd 





bak ~Y¥tawiang @ tohau toad ode of aeyon meodd Dhon bag oH sett atom — 
teow daad old bieg asod ton. hot yaocee wt sah teomedak of2 an ded? 


eit Old Teh taomye aot abt ae pobiiee 

Bol heseiaats ydioqesg saw Iiid edt ,od you asdd wevenes pent vou 
te Bebtog ctotudase ef@ ata iw hoths ton eae at tadd aonsot amt 
shomh Ta 2k Stw0a PhvestD oad To Sanonebwh, od bine gmmbs 
CATA A sh dana oi RRR aR oli Pam uateme cS ied 


10800 oni sa 9h —E— 


jt ax src. Laas 


ee a eee Hg Sa 





J 


36590 


BING CO, MATTH“¥s, 
Appellee, 


. 






— 


4 
tl APPRAL FROM — 
va. 


JACOB HAYDEN, Trading as NORTH 
SHONM NISCOUNT CO., and BE, L. PORK, 


Apoeli ante. 2 7— O bres 624) 


AR, PRAGiDING JUSTICE MesUAELY 
DELIVERED THK OPINION GF THR COURT, 


COURT OF CHICAGO, 


Pigintirf, in an aetion of trover involving an autoxobile, 
upon trial by the court iad a judgment for 3400, from which defend- 
ante appeal. 

In this gourt they first complain of the refuwal of the 
trial court toe grant a action for shange of venue. When the cause 
Was called for trial counsel for dafendante stated that they wanted 
& chenge of venue; counsel for oleintiff waa ready for trieh; the 
court suggested that a proper petition should be filed ond intimated 
that if it was «tatuteory in fers the notion would be granted; the 
eturt then paseed the case for half an hour in order to cive defend. 
ante’ ecursel time te srevare his petition fer enange ef venue. “en 
the petition was oresented it was signed by only one of the d4efende 
ante, &. L, Perkell; tke court called attention te this, ané ae the 
ether defendant, Jsesb Haydon, did aot anpear te sien the oetition 
end, indeed, 414 not appear st sll apen the trisi, the motien waa 
denied, 

The statute provides that where there are two or more dee 
fendants « chatige af venue shall net be granted upen defendants! 
motion unless the appilcation ie sade by a1) the defendantea; that 
every application for change of verwe shall te by petition, veri- 
fied by the affidavit of the applicant. Pars. 1, 3, 9, eh. 146 Til. 
Stat. (Cahill.) Ho emmge of venue vill be granted unlers a proper 


petition is submitted. Zhe People v. Lee, 311 11]. 552; Onsey v. 
Retail Clerks’ Union et Bh., 526 112. 405. 


aot? Jemaay Yo aghadd sol wele eg ett oxeeee ee GHD ãAM 


Pe ee Ee, 



















ae oenat 
a Airs ‘ * * 






a RE eee 


— ree 


Aummai ren mings wivogert 
sic — ok 2". quae agai 


me b : 3. on J 0 5 >. a: ay A Ka phe | ie et 


bee. —w bate BURG of 
ghd FLO MOTION WaT COMET. 


etidexetun an ynivieval teverd Ye nobtea ux wr , Treva re” ohn 
aieeertod tohdw ach. — ——— ame 


line ses: 9 








Ae Ree - to eee 





cei 29 Leewon edt. te sikwbemot eben q 
eens #42 n6lY  oune to opie 10) molten o vomrgowr eee ta 
Podnwe yor? gem? dotede sturbos'teb ce? Lowhkod Betxd “wot Dons! oi 4 
ea¢ pinkud vel chert aew Til¥alel¢ tot feeaned pooner te pit 3 
Setamtind hue heift od biwoda aelsiieg weary # rand hedweygbe —— 
edg thetorta ae tiwow aeivos wat ——— — * — 
«bie tel avty od ohee 2 tue we Tied wer een eet : 











-havteh ale to ane “loo yo beag te eew tt — — or dettitce wy 
oit ns divs pated Od aoliantde ROLiag sxved oH] Lhe tee Va) Wl we _ 
nels itee att oko oF tepqce son bay — yee Fonat” ditabonteh He — 
aw o om eds (Tales ott wequ Lie” — doa BEN Reobat haa” 
; tg per of eo! ooh ei went QT So 
sh Otom To os ete eyed” wapsie Salle” æotxsa vauua⸗v ·vvn “er 
‘atashpetes noqn botany ad saa Linde auder te egceHe ae, 
fad? ~otaabaeteb omg. Lia'yd aha eho me kobe Lega ped ab Ln 
alnev ,molshieg. Ya of (hada oehew Re ophelte ‘et mokaoo tt ee 
KEL BRL sia YO (E4L sexe Pampdtngs ont Lo abvabstte ods * bot 
ꝛogoxq @ anedau bodacty od Lhty ounauv to $ eee ae Bins ae 
L supa) yaaa" eft am’ — § 















The trial court gave every consideration te the defendants 
in censidering thie motion, but in view of the failure to follow the 
statute the motéon for change ef venue was properly dented, 

the plaintiff teatified tuat he owned the automobile in 
question, having purchased it in day, 1931; it ie coneeded thet it 
was taken from him on tae afterooon of August 12, 1932; very shortly 
afterward the defendant, kr, Aayden, called plaintiff by telechone 
and inforsed Sim that he was the man who had caused the automebile 
to be reseved and that it was in hie warehouse; Mr. Hayden again 
eAlled claintiff over the telephone and advised him that Br, Perkell, 
the other defendant, would be in his, Hayden's, office at four o'cleck 
te aet regarding the automebile; about Auguet 25th plaintiff saw 
Sr, liay@en driving plaintiff's autemobile. The defendants relied 
upon a note given by piaintilfs, seeured by a chattel mortgage cone 
veying the autesobile ae security to B. LL. Perkell, and it is ase 
serted that beesuse of plaintiff's failure to pay a monthly install- 
ment according to the terme of the note, they were entitied under 
the terms of tae chattel mortgage te deelare all of the instaliments 
of the nete due and te take immediate and exclusive poesersion of 
the property. the excoution of the note and chattel mortgage iz 
@onceded by plaintiffs, but he aeverte that the same are vols for the 
reason that the lew was made at e greater rate of intereet than 
7 per cent per annum; that the lender 414 not have a license to 
make such a loan, and thet the transaetion was in violation of the 
Small ieans Act, para, 27, ch. 74, (Gahill.) Thie act srevides in 
Substance that it eheall be unlawful te make any lean of money in the 
amount of 9300 or less and charge or contract for or reesive a 
greater rate of interest than 7 per cent per annum without first 
obtaining a license from the Department of Trade and Commeres, and 
that such License shall be kept in a conspicuous pesition in the 
place of business of the licensee. Defendants had ne such license, 

Plaintiff negotiated with both Mr. Hayden and ir. Perkell 








tk wLidenotua vat honwe od gens boLtivebs Viituteig em | 
th send boboonas ek #2 (LEGS yynit ad 24 budsduxeg yalved ,seiteoup 
eirtede eter RHO G4 ‘Yawqua te soouted ia ex? wo wit oat aeded gen 
enetgeiot yo Tilsisiaig helen aebyal tl  PRakseleh ais hiawre dhs 
aiidauotue 283 beeven bast etiy com ett saw oa gold min hoaretal bag 
fiesta , 18 ted? ate hesivis bas enedgn ing ont aeve re —X R 
deeloto wot te salto e a .siA ah ed bigow Pete teh, mit. at 
Wee Tilisinke MOR towgua toda jodideuwesee od gabe Bard 
RAD foe edawbaetes sl OLidqmsten e Tikeaiody galvind, — 
“190 SHeQites ietjade 2 yd hewess «Tsealede wd gorda atom © aoqy 
ste ob $2 Row ,Llodte4 of od od Wliwoee ae efhideowten ot gabyay 
~{indank tLidaos @ ysq of Stulind a) Tittalelq to samcand tad detyen 
| tehew belt bias ete; yeas ..ef0n end Le gated at OF galbiogea. dmem 
ataemlieteal oft otha otalooh.of egagtiem iettade ong 30 eased ed 
Yo mobeerencg avionioxe bus stetbeumt alas ef ban sub etom eit to 
#2 oungitom ingsaite kno ston ed? Yo, woitegexe elt. .ydungotg eds 
282 40% bev om oame odd fold aot99ne on dod ,Thidalatg yd hebseags 
- aedd tnetedal Yo stat todeety @ de Chew sew geod ets gait Kogagt — 
of eenselt # ove fom Lb tobned ony factt pmwane req taeg Faq)? 
od? Yo moi salety oh saw mokioastast wit test bse, mek. tious oem 
at mendvera doe etut (.£h8dad)., 0, otto, 8S..00g, fod maeed tiem 
exis a2 yeunw Ye aad you suse o¢ ttwedew od diade 2h fed’ ovdetedae 
— S7i9GOT XO Tot foetinos te eyradie baw naek, 60, O08. w 4 arg , 
|) dame ¢wedste vane we8q gag9, t9g S neds deoxpstad to eter, Fane gs : 
_ bee onmesmed fae edett Te taratxened of amat, someting, ot intege 
Wid ok Mold teng BHewetqanee @ mk eqax od thedy ganna) 
“soaaeols oun of bas adunhae tod ————— 


! 
, : | ae eabae teh ed? wo tpt tanebienco “teva avayg Mcece dadtd, w200 Rene 
. ons eociot of wrwihet edt “ke weiv ol aud ymoks om abda snteendonne a 
| sbeiaes yfreqoug eat eueoy le syanda tot sobton —* — 
* ee Pe 
| 























in the office of the forth Shore Discount Company with reference 
te the lean, effering as security his autemcbile; they agreed uwoen 
@® lean te him ef 9156 and a cheek for this amount was given to 
Plaintiff whe signed the nets and chattel mortgage. Although the 
loon wae $150, the note plaintiff signed was for 9180, payable in 
ten monthly instaliments of $18 ench. It io manifest that this 
excess cf $36 over the amount actually leaned te plaintify would 
be interest at the rate of about SO per cent per annum - fer in 
excess of the 7 per cent Limit prescribed by the statute. Defendants 
in their reply brief for the first time attempt to meet thie point, 
Saying there is no evidence that thie 930 was fer "commission or a 
sharge,“ and say it wan to cover the coat of imeuranee, There ie 
geome suggestion in the record isat some of the defendante seid seme- 
thing about insuranee, but the recerd wlee tends to shew that ae 
insurance was pleesd ob the cur. In People vy. Stokes, °81 fll. 
189, £t was held that thie stotute covered 2 tingle trareaction, 
See aleo Haring vy. Peyser, 259 Ill. Apr. 152, and the recent 
opinien of thie court in Feople v. Morey, So. 36452, filed April 
10, 1933, The trial court preperiy held thet under the statute 
the chattel meortguge and note were void. Para, 28, ch. 74 (Uahili.) 

Ve ugree with defentantsa’ roint thet there ware no evidenee 
that the automobile rar malicisusly tauen, In on action of trever 
& malicious taking may be alieged and amet be proven. The sresent 
ease Was not tried upon thal theery aud there vas no attempt te 
prove any exemplary ¢@anages, Yurthereere, the ease wae one of the 
fourth clase, tried by the court, and hence the enee is wratever 
the evidence maker it, and this was 4 simple case of conversion. 
if the chattel mortsage had been valid, defendsnte would heve bean 
entitled te take posseseicn. 

in Price v. Bailey, 265 111. app. 353, it wan held that 
the general finding in favor of plaintiff will be sustained al though 





wi Ange heatgs Yad OLhvondtul ats yottioed ox Yale tee meek sat OF 
| et serig set tavean ahd ait deeds hee CLR it bea 
out quedeta  vegwatrom fotteds bali oda Oat Kengta ‘ode Tidotakg 
Mh eSdagog 0812 Xet aaw om 24 Vhtatetg eee snd” ONG daw ABOE 
ewer VPitabe fe oe Deawed @LLenden taieme wth Goede O88 Yo Heese 
ee ee ee et se 
einghaste® otuteta ecto! teeirsdere shade dade deg’? enneceiat , 
| tog eat namo emt eae tor at 6 Neha Qt — ! 
sete aetawhunon™ cot daw OG abt? gaddesnetive ot et Wed 
-sa0 Dies wdtwbawteh oat i — 


























“ATER RET SORA ok ye oe . 
“ pdudicte ot Tehia eee bbed ytueyotg Mees tales bite ene! ‘at | 
(LEAR OT slo (eR EAT how sich fon hit” whet oar 60 didi’ WE 
oSeoebive om exw ered? fect Pater ‘etaebhetek ddiw seine ay —— 
rovers Teomettes op o em war eae 
Saeeatq e@%  mevereg of Sake bee begedie o¢ yee Gnbied awoks Liki a 
‘2 @eaedte of ue otedt haa ews ts* Pale Boga foie? te mer o8ee 
edt Yo owas sew ease ahs ,otéaredtent ee re | 
“onevodarw al sans see sumed bie! Fede esd yeheltd jamal eeiet 
agketavaan te eked o Lamha @ daw whee haw’ at ‘andi opnob ive Say” “ah 
Aoed ava hivew efaabac toh 5 dante Head Wad Sganaied Lastdie ona⸗ 
ii, ee tn malta aaa a aati’ “ot botenedd® | 
‘ thule Bhok saw oR, BOE AGA” LLE SOR" — Le asian ar — 
———— nent ainte · ‘savah ad gitbAlt farondy 


: * 
he Hee ORR . he Sfak Ge ee web a ek See ee ** trata f 







ee 
—— 





4 


the evidence may be insufficient to sustain a count of malicious 
and wilful wrong. See nleo Levy vy. Jehdkowuki, 259 TL1. App. 447. 

The evidence shows that both Aayden and ferkell were oon- 
eerned in taking the automobile, Or. FPerkell teeatified that he had 
the car taken and had sent plaintiff a report and notice of sale; 
he also made the loan te plaintiff and upon the trial offered to 
return the car to plaintiff upon receiving payment of the amount 
of the lean. The defendant Hayden admitted the car wae in his 
Porsesvion and he wae seen driving it, 

Judgment wae entered for $400, Flaintiff testified that he 
had paid 3475 for the car and had rebuilt it, end thot ite market 
value beenuse of this iaprovement was $600 at the time it was taken, 
Plaintiff said that the complete car frem end to end wae rebuilt. 
Refendants intreduced witnesees who teatified withaut heving seen 
the car, that ite value would be about $115 or from $150 te (165. 
The figure of $400 awarded by the court may be somewhat high but it 
wae within the seepe of the teativony and we would not be justified 
in dieturbing it. 

We see no reason te reverse and the judgsent is affirmed, 

AFFIRMED. 


Batehett and G'Cenner, 4J., eonour, 








stig cereineiGiunais nnmseteadihes halle son aia ae 
hash eat Caste bed tidand Léadeed. 28 sblidonetim Gat. amting as damon 
ler Ie sollon bas Paget « Tisshal¢ daoe basi bats noniad aas · 
ob hexette, daltd at noqu bas TItetedg Comin, i 
Janes ot To same gatvinves aeqy Tigaielg of tay edt qautey 
ald ai sew tao add botthuhs sebyelt tanhas'teh eat saned edt Te . 
th ted Med idtaed VWidalels OOM gel hogegue sew, demmmbah 6 yy 
fodnam ad) dase baw .th Piduden bed bam seo edt. 20 ae aad 
Hotes Cow th omke Ae NAA: ANTE OE: i OE AE 
 sttiudon caw bas oF ban wet? tH9 ste Lqume wat tadt phage Thdsal 
neee gatved suositiv Sol titeod. ede eowmemslw bes tna , 
2640 af O84 ort v9 £60. tueds od bisow auey A0h tat x09, oat 
ot gud dgid sesiwomon od yom Sauno edt yt bebrers, ee 
holtiisal ef toa bivow ow bas yRomites? ocd. te agegm tt ew pote 
chenmndte 0h demmben tty, bien —e aera vn +90 990 + Mei oe > 
Ca ea oe hee SER ae! ae ee Ra ee — 




















‘ . * — 
at BAN —J eh —— 





: iy a Ne 

** — i aay al 
eM ae ewes 
Sh 
MP Re es or * eas Np irene a — 
+ —* 9 Siete ae i Er 

* — Ca ay eae re i — ve 4 pee 24* ee, ae 
ro) i, , J ee: WS Tian oe 3 re NEG. Zig Ck bas a 1% 
ea NRO iy tee ee J 
PETRI Sg AF ink TASTES I oar — 
op is x ‘ cee tu gat Blab * ce ae 

ais Poe Aye : DA SARS vat ve 
SRR Se hy TH — iy * iy ‘he 
3234 ae ia i ; 

: Se ae Bt Beg ice ee 8* LF 
a ae Rice Ph we Rae AMD be ees 7 a 


Tee ak Sy Rae RE ee ee PHASE Rezo J 










36361 


PROPLS a¥ THE STATS OF ILLInoers 
ox rel. Oscar Nelson as Auditor 
of Public Acecunts of the State 
of Illinois, 


vs. 


STORY ISLAKD SRATE SAVINGS BANK, 
a Corporation. 








: 
In the Batter ef the intervening } 
Petition of PATRICK and ANKA BOLAN, ) 
Appellees, 
APPEAL FROM SUPRRIGK 
¥s, 
. ) COURT OF GOOK coUNTY, 
IRWIR T, GILAUTH, ae Neceiver of 
Stony Island State Savinge Dank, 
a Corporation, } 
Appellant, } 


270 I.A. 625! 


BR. JUSTICE MATCHATT DELIVARED THR OPINION OF THE GGUKT, 


Thie appeal is by the reeeiver of the Stony island State 
Savings Hank from an order entered upon the intervening petition 
of Patrick and Anna Kolan on July 25, 1932. 

The faecte disclosed by the record appear to be ae follows: 
On July 25, 1931, the Auditor of Public Accounts filed his bill fer 
dissolution of the Stony island State Savings Hank, a banking eor- 
poration organized under the laws of Illineis, Irwin T. Gilruth 
was appointed receiver, On February 36, 10452, the Helans, husband 
end wife, filed an amended and supplemental petition praying that a 
deposit ef $2500 made by them in the bank ehould be declared to be 
@ preferred claim, end that the reeeiver should be required to pay 
that amount to them. ‘the receiver answered stating that he was 
without knowledge as to the facts alieged, but denying the peti- 
tioners were entitled to the relief prayed and asking that the 
Claim be aliowed as a general claim. 

The chancellor heard the evidence offered by patitioners 
(no evidence having been offered in behalf of the receiver) and 





J 
ie \ Selihna ta —*8 oon By tet xe 
if rigid tne ate ements J 





me ot 







see ilegga 


"AGO A aum hue anal te eee } 


fore: WoOet LATTA 


— en = Tae — 


* eon, — rE ae 


arot ae lat ae ince anna, bas — * 
tewelie® ae od oF Taouge brevet — boeeteath e302 eat — 
<9 sind abd bes —E ob idut * toa thea ons meet .o8 tet 4 
tes gatiaes & tant ayaived ofaf8 hanlal yaod? on? Yo nolsuloaalh 

‘ddwetto .T miwrl .etomt iil Yo ewes ode enaw’ —ERE aot tener : 
haetawt ,saatol ett ,860L ,28 yxecrdet ad .teviesst betalerca sew 
a tady galyorq soleiseq Letasselqque bas bebooms: as bell? ette bas 
od af haxsfoob of bivose asd ed at mods yd obam O88 te disoqed 
Yeo od pethupet od Aluods a9vieoet ent sand bas ,atale herr tore s : 

aaw of fatd anigeie betowene tevieoss od edd of Savon east 
«bduq odd waiyawd sud ,begeils etont od? of aa ‘pgbe fwoot twodt tw 
eft tad? gabdes haa heywtq Yohlor add of belttins et8w are aola 


ree A aS Se 
Pa 









“pipaole eq Ys bewm'tto qunehlye silt wisn 
bas’ (teviooet odd Yo Tiated ak bowtie —— 


entered 2 decree finding that on June 9, 1951, the bank wholly 
ceased doing business; that the Auditor of Publie Accounts took 
charge ef the bank and on July 10th appointed Gilruth receiver; and 
“that the petitioners herein, Pattiek Nolan and Anna Nolen did, on 
the Gth day of June, at about 1:36 o'clock in the afternoon, de- 
posit in a savings aceount, in the said Stony Island State Savings 
Bank, the sum of $2,860,00; that the said deposit consisted of cur- 
reney and that the denominations theres! were twe $1,000.00 bills 
and five $100.00 bills; that said deposit was made to one Robert 
Sain, whe was the cashier and one of the directors of said bank and 
that at the time of said depesit a conversation was had by the 
petitioners herein with said Hebert Dain, the contents of vhich 
Was ac folliews: Amma Kolan: ‘Are you sure that your bank is safe 
and that our money will be kept for us securely and returned at 
any time that we say need it?' Ur. Buin - respending: ‘Yer, Mre. 
Solan, ours ie a sate bank and yeu nesd have ne foars to leave your 
money with us.'* The decree further found that relying on these 
statenents aa meade ty Robert Eain, petitioners deposited their 
money; that the next merning, June $, 1931, at shout 10:30 a. m., 
the Stony Island State Savinge Hank ceased doing business; that 

at the time the Auditor of Public Accounts teok charge of the bank 
on the morning of June $th thers wee cash om hand in the oum of 
$26,199.51; that at the time the deposit was received the bank 

Was insolvent and had teen for seme time previously; that Robert 
Bain wes an officer ef the bank and knew that the bank was in- 
eOlvent at that time, and that the receipt of the deposit by him 
was a fraud upon petitioners, 

The decree further found "that by reason of the foregoing 
and the fraud exercised upen the estitioners herein, a trust was 
raised ex maleficig in faver of the petitioners herein in the sum 
ef $2,560.00 and that Irwin T. Gilrath, raceiver herein, is now 








visor sind of ,KEOL ,e vawe me 0 fast? nai datu omaha —* * 
foot etavesek stidut to weslbuA ont todd senoninud gadeh becuse 
bas ;vevieoes dgwiii® bedaleqye At0L yiet wo han dmed eat 8— 
.oih awtok sand bas aelod xoltseS ,ntewed esomedtisag eda tasie® 

-o% ,moowtedia att al dogiote O61L Suede te ,omuk ‘ty yes ate ot 
egnive! egat& baninl yaetS blae ed? oh ,euooee agaiviie a at Stace 
“ise ‘te betalancs tieogsd bles ond dant 490.008, 88. oY ast eat) —* me 
eliid 00.000, owt exow ‘losted? eablianlweaeb ond ted) bow yous 
trade one of eben naw thacywd hiea tadt settas 00.00.46 ott tas 
bus wmed bine to exoteerkb ost ‘te one.bac xn same add aew ete wake 
Ot xs Hus now aottanrternce a theeqah bing to emte ‘oth da todd 
‘alphde "to atassave ast ued trode bine dtiw aiered aronotehveg 
etwa ef dawed teey Past? otus uox era’ tan hot anh iawalie® as Pe 











da bourutex aan eisxtwese au set bqex. ‘ed tite wenn ~~ jad ban 
ac ,a0k' igukhangees - etek sek. "Tod hoes -cam ow. teneoomhe wae 
qU6y evaet of axes? 98 ovad booa soy ban daad olen # el /etao. .aeted 
Saecd we yaiyler tat have? redetet eoroeh wat" ew atte yonom 
hed? bedgiseqh atoncdiiieq ,aiadt danded yt eben. es abasumtata 


get 4G OE10L sugde dm ,f00L, , 2 eowl ,gaiacem dxom oat sods yee = 


fadt yaveutesd gatoh beaseo dowd agaived esate Sontel yao, oma 
aaed e€¢ Yo earmlo Mood géaxooed olidul Ie tetlbwa odd ombs odd. ge 
to mut ont tt Raed ne doeo aay emndt Me? ooh to. gatonem, off ap 
hed oct boviaget sar tinegsd. oct eats att ta, cade “are 
_ Steded sama jyLawedvexg outs pmos wit aed bed bared , 





+ Asot ede 3068 weed bee abst Ye-epadte in.eonsell 


Gime Fineash edt To sgtaosy odd gadd haw , ould Sarid se, saevdog 

hoy i ) Sitteno ts ttequebuett, ear 

ileal: acid 20, AORAT, — — ROMS WT POLIMB OMT cote 

saw tes? «© ,Gioret etenedtitog ect moqe beatotoxe, Ruare® 058: Dap 

aun ald ah atorod ecosols keg O63. to cove? sh atesieianame tester 
won eh, ROTO seviaoee gHM2LLRO of atwel dost baw 0060 





Pee 


acting as trustee for the benerit ef the petitioners, Patrick Nolan 
and Anna Nolan, holding the sum ef $2,650.00 as sald trustee for 
the exclusive use and benefit of said Patriek and Anna telon,* 

It wae therefore ordered by the decree, “that the claim of 
the aaid petitioners Patrick Helan end Anne Rolan, in the sum of 
$2,800.00, be ond the sane ia herety allowed as a preferred claim 
and that said claimants are wititled to preference and pricrity of 
payment by sald Irwin °, Gilruth, receiver for said defendant, 
Stony Ialand State Savings bank, provided tat upon the dloetribu- 
tion of the assete of said benk it ie determined that there were 
in the possession of the sald defendant tank, at the time of the 
Closing of said bank, and that there came into the hands of the 
said reesiver, among the assete of the sald defendant bank, certain 
assets subject to the payment of preferred claims, ahead of and not 
subject to the claims of general erediters,and that the moneys of 
said petitioners, or any purt thereof, ere a part ef the said ase 
sets and should be paid therefrom. * 

the decree further ordered that the questions of whether 
there were such assets in the possession of the defendant bank at 
the time of the closing thereof, or whether such assets came into 
the posacesion of the receiver, and if eo, whether petitioners had 
an interest therein as against the claims of other oreferred 
ereditore, should be, snd the same ware reserved for future de- 
termination at a time to be thereafter fixed by the court, and 
that the court retained jurisdiction for the purpoce of such de- 
termination, The de@ree directed that in the event no assets 
should be found in the hands of the receiver upon distribution 
which should be subject to be applied te the payment of the elaim, 
or any part thereof, as preferred, then the claim, or any part 
thereof, so remaining unpaid, should etand allowed as a general 
Claim against the estate of the bank in the sam of $2500, or of 


Ip ante ——— 





pes Lek to ixdas rete lsiseg afd te t1 tensed add wet eoteund Lal patios 
Set wevanrs hive 66 00.008,86 ko mun malt gakbtod ynedett aud bee 
* nate atnk bas Jolutel bias te btened hae saw eviestons, oat 
to mhaia sss set" ,coteeb ott ud bezebro Steleness tow th 
To me se Mt onto wink bee neko dolnsnt exemotttiog — 
piels bere leg & a bewolds ydetod 9h saae add hom od co ne 
te qriteltq bun sauers'ty iy of beisiias xa siapmiake bine tad baa 
,tnebhoe'teb bios vet tavisoet ,terihe «ft miwel Shee va aarcxas 
-uilxtald odd pew dam? bebiverq Aere agabwat acer bee tet — 
aArν Mees Todt demiavedeh af Jk Aned bhaw to skosnn esd to, a 7 
edd? to amie od #2 . deed Sompan toh bhen ant Yo xatunossos ait at 
edt To shuns ond ofnt uno wtodd Gaue bam vito bisa, Tacx ce 
aiatuve ,dued grata ted tine ey to atonns odd yaona vovisoen b baw 
ton bre to hbneres ,sulbeie imcietorg to soemyne wat oe festive adeesa 
Se eyenom exif gece ba «tet ibexo Lexeney te tminke ood et dookdun 
“ee Siek sult Yo fang a ote . Toone? stag gee ce tome) kiog hkaw 
Fae esol kag od Pheosin haw ates 
as2iteuw te unohsaou ot Sead herehte texttiwt eetoeb waft wet 
te dard saebretwh adt Yo asiaeeseeq s6t ah eteoee soue, now auedd 
ofal ones efoemn shun tedtode xe , Yootestd gokeols nit Tq amhd id 
Pet atenols ieg testede “yoo Th bas Lar tees mate Te nolarenaeg aia 
| berte'tets ate to umtade edd gamkayn am — — 
«eh givin xet tevreses wtew emmn oft han ,od Bingsie ar 
haw ,otwaa ost Uf Daxtt to Staoted? oc of emit = tacmebtentemed 
~ob doue Yo scoqeug ost Tw aeltotholwh heatetor faueo ext ded 
ateuee om taove auld sit tat hedsoosth aerten ad? sol teniirend 
foliudlatelh aequ tevieoes eit Le mhaed ost ab hawot of Duede 
stake ocd Le Inemeag odd oF Hokiqgn dot tontden od bivede se ite 
_gtaq yao 16 yahale ods odd  berie'tesg oa. eToomds Pag Yas wD 
 fateung « aa howolis goate Stvods cnbairn akshanen 2, tentedt 

















‘te to — Roomia Ons MEME Od Le'ssanee Ont tes 


es ele : 


such part thereol, as should not be eo preferred in payment, and 
whould be entitled to share with al1 genetTal ciaime which sheuld 
have been allowed against the estate of the bank in any and ali 
édividends, which should upon distribution be ordered valid upon euch 
general clains, 

Patitionara have made a motion to diamias the appeal for 
the Feason that the deeree appealed from ie net final. They sone 
temd that the recalpt of thie deposit sade under the clroumetances 
ae disclosed by the evicence smounted to a fraud upen them; that 
by reason thereof a conetructive trust arese which a court of 
equity will enforce im faver of them, and that it wie ae held in 
the similar cases of 
879; Peon 
and Streeter v. Gamble, 294 Ili. 332. 


The receiver, on tie other had, contends that the evidence 


Eamk, #42 112. App. 
c, 262 21. App. 468, 






dove not establish euch fraud as would be sufficient to raise e sone 
structive trust. We are inclined te the opinion that the eridence 
eTroduced by petitionere (none huving been effered in banalf of the 
receiver) is primes facis sufficient. However, 1¢ 46 unnecessary te 
decide that question for the reason that, contrary to our first ime 
pression and upen consideration of the whole caee, we sre compelled 
te senclude that the decree ie not finel and appealable and must be 
dismiesed for that reason. The decree discloses that the liglans 
are found to have enly # corditional preferred claim sgeinst the 
receiver, which, if the eerpdition fails, is allowed only as a 
general cleim. in other worde, the court hae not Finally determined 
the ree of the trust fund or the righte of these claimants to it. 
This court dees mot determine the rights of litigante piecemesi. 

it is quite umneeeseary to disuse at length the question 


of when on order or decree ig final within the meaning of the statute, 


Ban , paseo * — oe ad * — ae tated — 


pete ph 54 











Liane yaa at Hhod odd Ye SIst00 on? tuadape bewolte ave éevad — 
soit ote akiy pitied Oe mondudtebats Biueiia sohity yenmonivts 





“wet Lavage od Gelaeth of aciion a — we” 
ere Cod? Jtoalt ton af mort béleoces ee ee 
avonst eters otf Yebdd idm Fiaogeh slid to Jglaoet oie dank Baed — 

tasid — noc ‘Buse a be — —— —* — —D———— 





toa! h ver 


eocgaive ant fads —— coor tate —* a — 


— ae 


* J— 
eonshive $a) deat nolaiqo one of ‘tcntical ets a" — evisouxte | 












et te teat ar ‘beastie need gatved . ———— “et bes ore 
ot Cratbononiy wt $2 ,xovewoll ‘Seite lod Vive hoe? ace auise « t (xovi ee 
om Parkt xwo of \eaidaoo , Yadtt eoaser off ae its sand 

4 beliequos ove ow ,o¢a0 efodw of? Yo dolterebiemo=s aeew “bas | 

|| od taum Blin bttecov gga baw Thart fon of Gerben add Judd shulonee od 
\ stiefol si tei) ovwofskth vetoed SY .aeaaex sad? ret beeskanlh 


edt Featays stato bottetexy fedeh¥ibacs # ytao evad ef bavet om 
{ “ig wa) {tad powolte ef ,efiad  walrihaos 947 12 80 be stovhever 
| pentazeseh Yrtent? dou eat Proc’ ond ebaew toddo at” * mth is Lato a9 
oti OF w¥anntets b2043 Yo winds ast ts Baw't dewes ode ve nos ait 
feemmoole aganyld hs to adicty tx add onberotod tom aot ‘rues ela? 
aoktsony wad dsyims ‘de wawelt of — * * . 


hy ——— Ta» es 
ii eturate oat ‘te —8 od akos bv tant at —— ro — Evy * <n 
‘Kh $Me ke” S284 * — ————— — 





— 


It will be sufficient tn tint regard to elite Grey v, Ames, 220 
Til. 250, and People vy, Lilineis State Bank, SA? hl, 615, In 


the last named case the court stated: “While this court hes not 
decided the precise question presented, it nae repeatedly held 
that a final decree is not necessarily the last order in a case, 
and that any order which finally fines the rights ef the parties 
is final uné appealuble.” Hoier v. Eaplan, 513 iil. 448, uped 
which the receiver relies, is not inconsistent with this vier, 
The cpinion in that case etates: “The test is whether the de- 
cree or order aupealed from determines the altimate righte of the 
parties with respect te distinct matters whieh have ne bearing 
en other matters left for further consideration," 

This decree, it is apparent, dees not determine the 
ultimate righte of the psrties interested in the subject matter of 
the controversy, The appeal should not have been grante4, and the 
motion of netitionera te dismiss 1t will he allowed, 

AFPEAL DISMISSED UPGK MOTION OF APPSLLWSS, 


MeSurely, >. J., and O'Connor, J., coneur. 


O88 anh at sOno otto of tanger said nh dunlodtiwe of L£tw 9T 
ah OL oS CS el pteee phon l ll e 198 AEE 
tom aad trees atm oflAy* . thesate due ods gage Seman tuak sida 
| hed yhbosanqes aad ot <hotangetg maiisoog salcoty ont ehioob 
9980 o ak tehuxe foal eit ylitavaveen ton et ⸗a ra foarte todd 
aohiraq etd Ro Beagls out next? yLtealt soldw tebee yas sant das 
moow sBS2 At CAE yup foad ae gatok | —— Ane kas 
















wah edt tedgetiw a2 3a02. att. pene? vasn — ne Hoda 
odd to atdgtt ogenigiv edt eoaluteseh mort bets —R 





UP hans ——— 






one — ag, Dal 


cbewakte ¢ £kte a2 — od —— pute 
oo) | AREA WO, MORTON WoT © MA es wrdguincte 





Seed Yak ‘ @ —E 
——— — — 1x 





Sere 
Wi Saizveoun eee ekioak 

DBs — SATs — ———— 

Oe Be We ee ae Cane *— inane Be 

i285 VSS Bl acamey fan Tey wm ak 2 ‘th 
Cite ave ef es, v ed 


gt atet Marte eee ae he 5 ae Rie 4 38 oh ated 


* 
? , mu Mais Laie mee 
. . a oe * : nat Daa ee ‘ — 
ties) OF TS Rael Peete oe Ye eee ae 
UR, men 
‘i Ay 
F 


os 
* 


See tee Speen —— ‘ ver J 
NGA Arteg Os gf; 


2 h *2 — 5* 
ORAM ons At? Of oateah ve “obese foe ae 





36580 f 


JAREG Ki. KENKEDY and OTTO Von x 
RAUTBNERARZ, Co-partners Trading ~< 
as Lake View Real Zstate Zachange, 





Appellants, 
APPEAL FROM BUMICIP 
va. 
GOURT OF CHICAGO. 
JOHN RA, THOMPSON, Jr., 
Appellee, 


fy fF, oT A Zn 
2°70 YA: 625 
BA, JUSTICKR MATCHEDT DRLIVERED THE OPIKIGH OF THR COURT, 


This sopeal is by plaintiffs from an order entered on 
Sovenber 21, 1932, muses pre tune ae of Seveuber 19, 1932, granting 
the prayer ef the second amended petition of defendant, praying 
that certain erdere entered on June 16, 1932, and June 28, 1932, 
should be vacated and set aside. 

Tae reecerd shows that on December 14, 1931, plaintiffe 
brought suit filing @ statement ef claim fer comeissiona claimed 
to have been earned in a real estate transaction. ‘They filed a 
demand for trial by jury. Defendant appeared, filed an affida- 
vit of werite ond alee demanded trial by jury, and the cause was 
Placed on the jury calendar. Gm June 14, 1932, an order was en- 
tered which recited that by agresnent of the parties tae jury 
demand wae withdraen and the cause submitted to the sourt and com 
tinued until June 25th, Om Jume 24th, in the absence of defend- 
ant and his course), an ex parte judyoaont wae entered in faver of 
pleintiffe and ageinst defendant for the eum ef $380. 

Tae order from whieh plaintiffs appent set aeide the 
order entered June 16th and the judgment entered June #8th. The 
eriginal motion te set sside these orders, with affidavit in 
Support thereef, was filed Auguat 5, 1932, - more than thirty 
days after the entry of the same, The procevding was therefore 


under eeetion 21 of the Municipal Gourt act. A petition praying 


* 
— 





* — 
fi ' — wav OFRO oa = 
pots he — 


— foes & el 


— ia 
oid — oetWONT A ee 


oe * Se Ae — 





auu aA 


“880. 1088 


“BD att Yo! Vratas eras vr a rranor u ‘worse sau 





leat huey 
to 
89 here sae. she ast, ariituiady yd ad — we eat 
gaisuety .BERL CS todupyol Ye oa Ah one Qa TER of ve 3 J 
aaiyetg ,AodaA Teh Le maLtitee hehowme, dawnen oat Io — 4 
| REAL OH SAW ham, SEL yal couh 0 Heentnn, mepiee — ie 
| webhee Ae bom Rater se ke on % 
* — ——— es —X — ao Jet aveds Rxovee eff ead — 
—** afoiesiouce 102 mals in sasmente, “ BLE the Agwent 
@ boli? yoo? ,Gesounants, adedes. dawt « ab gonsee need eves © “6 
wabttie a Sodtk -horasgge fanbae%ed * 
ase enuee out ban ,erut yd Laixt bebammh cade baw odixoa * 
as gaw Tobie da ,RE0L bt paul a0  .nabamtan. eug od? ap: Regalg: 
— oat solstag ets to saammomtge ged sass dad loos ie haw boxes 
“102 baa gawen ef Of bestiaiva saues eit bow awexbalt tw aw — 
















— 















obawteh Io soueds edt atzs cows mo .deOt ont shtow — 
te tovet at howdsne saw susaubdoh BPxeo BA ae ,foansed », " ce 0m * i 


-O868 2o mvs oct to% sanbae'tos tenlega bite ener . 
eid hing do0 lavqus att atata iq Aokiw mont xe0ae oat 








= ence a pn a — 
— — — ? 
— aes 








“ea i808 saul poxotms turaydot od? dan AtOh eaul bareta * oh J— 
at Sivabitie diiw ,eiehve ened? ehina #98 ef molios Janighta 

ven aeld nes otom ~ , RCL 8 dempud BOLtt aaw a. ·rn⸗ to : — 
atotwieds aew yathoeoorg off .emme odd to yatae os tose wad 














yatyerg ols igeg A .dee ttw0d degletaus od? Le £8 aobtove vent 


> eee: 


the euse relief wae filed by defendant Getober 24, 1032, and this 
Was in turn saperseded by a second amanded petition filed ty him 
Getober 31, 1952, The matter came on fer hearing upon the eecond 
amended petition and the anewer of plaintartfe therete, amd the 
court after hearing the evidence (whiek Le preserved in the ree~ 
ord) and a consideration of it, entered the order from chich this 
appeal ie taken, 

The seeond agended petition recited the bringing of the 
@ult mid the Piling of plaintiffs' otatenent fer demand for jury 
and of the affidavit of merits vith demand fer jury; alleged that 
defendant's attorney anewered the ¢all of the case on different 
dates and was ready for trial; that the cause wae eontinued on aie 
veree Gutce because of the abeonee of various witnesses; that of ter 
June Sra but before Jaume 13th the Chief Justice of the Kuntecipal 
court ammounced that tae trial of reguler jury cases would conse 
after June 10, 1932, aid that #11 the cases then pending on ali 
jury calendars, exeept these which were to be heard in room 1108, 
Would go to the September jury calendar; that an announcement te 
that effect was published in the Daily Bunieipal Court Keoord; that 
Judge Helander, before wham the case waa pending, anneunced that 
notwitheta ding the general order jury eases would be heard in room 
1106 for another week, until June 17th; that on June lith defend 
ant's atterney anewered the eell of thie case in room 1106, stated 
defendant was ready but because of numerous enges wiiech were ready 
and ahead of this case, it was continued te tune 16th, that Cobert 
Ete Gokin was an attorney associated welts the law firm whe were 
attorneys ef record fer defendant, that he waa the atterney in 
charge of the defense, prepared and filed the pliesdinys, and ape 
peared on each of the guile; that in the June 15th issue of the 
Municipal Court Seeord thie case was om trial call in reom 1106 


under a liet of cases entitled “uen-jury eases,” whereas in fact 





\ 
J 
—4 


— 


stds bun \SE0L ,08 tedese0 Sahanton ys beLET saw — * 
wht ys best? mole iteq bobapun bugspe « yd habawzeque ams al mi 
bncoes oft aoqu gaizasad 40% av Omen, Giada eae etek oR redode0 

aay bias ,oseted? ettivalele to towane oA3 bas wots to g — * 
——— edt at bevseaosg af doluw) sousbive oid polseod tadta 3 
abe lobster aoxt sobre ont bored ae (d2 te doltexsblanoe « bas Gin 
ofthe? ak — 
edt to gatyaled ait bedioes asitiieq bebsmae baene OAT 
gawk tot bash tk seommsade ‘aTtheniele te yoitlt ons ie tue 
Seals heye Lie ret ‘eo Ns ad h ‘dete edison Yo dhvatttte ane had ae 
a “gmat a6 eano et ‘to tine oid beréwaad ware ta ‘a! danbae to! 
oth ba Seuslénon enw oanee o@3 dant jiaked 26% —* ball ‘ad wade “ 
toils tait peoenvat iw avoluay xe —— * dol udeod boda Sat 


















— bisew dorae Cust to kusgor Yo talté e8% ¢o4) heokwonn 
“tte 0 gakiaeg 490d aenao one ste Yad? baw Seek * oct 
BOLL aver ak wisbal od 6d andi Minh Slots dqhtild labial Ve 
od taomonuense oh tadd jrwhaniao (aut reduodaes oe oi ite 
gand phrovel awed Lingle 2th ehied odd oh bovis ttdug aan 
tests beoavonse aathneg tev exes oid mow Wroted , x6) 











— 2* 








mek ak — od ‘pdwow A OD veut —— axoneg eit ‘Suita —— 


| aba tab ant onw' ag tact jldTk ome tiga ,toow soabona’ ot Was 
berate 0048 moet mh eames abas te tise’ aad boxewaris weno⸗⸗⸗ asin 
vhoot oxew dod soess avoveawa TO)eaussed Ju ybaox saw danh ts 
$sede0 Saat ,822 oaut of beunldao eee 84 (ones otal Yo hacia’ 
stew ow ast wal ond che dedalooean Youtotia — — wn | 
al Yomotts old anew of Sad? ,dnabas'top Xo% hieeod g weer odd, 
— hes jhe Rig hate” Be’ lil hele! —⸗ prs 
oils Yo ouset s¥eL oaut ons at taut sekinn wit 3 Haw! 0 he ne 
QOLL moor nt Lied tale? mo aaw bane wide’ PubOI ued Logline 


eek ab ad * come Ceutenia® bbtthved’ dbmeb’ xe! wat a i 




















the cases then in room L1l06 were Jury canea; that en June Loth 
e2id Zts “okin knew that he would be ongeged before Indge Paire 
bank on the 16th from 9:50 a. m until the close of eourt im the 
afternoon, except lunch time, on trial of the first sase for 
trial in seid court, entitled "“Kaplar 

niture Co.*, and kmew that it would therefore be imposeible for 





his to try this ease; thai in order to prevent any default said 
Ste Yokin appeared in room 1106 prier te 8:%) a. m, om June 16th, 
told the minute clerk the case was a jury case, thet he bad to try 
the first case om Judge Pairbank's gall end eouldn't anewer the 
Gall of the case or try it; that sald clerk told nin there were 
severe. other eages ahead of It thet were ready and that all of 
them could net be heard in the two duys left, and that since this 
cage Yar severth en the call and wae a jury case, and could not 
because of the cases ready ahead ef it be reached fer trial bee 
fore the elesing of that branch for the suseer, the case would net 
be called for trial on June 16th but would be mitematiealiy con- 
tinued aid placed on the Septenber calendar; that after reece iving 
and relying en the statement ef the elerk, he went te Judge Faire 
bank's court and there resnined engaged for the rest ef the day, 
and 414 not return to room L106; thet relying on the inforuation 
and assurances se given hin by the minute clerk end on the de- 
fendant's jary demand, he did net therealter consult the reserd ef 
the case as to the disposition made thereof on said date, it 
being his intention te eensult the Geptember jury calendar; that 
neither defendant mer hie attorneys heard anything more about this 
ease until defendant waa on August 1, 1932, served with exeeution, 
and that hie attorneys then exasined the recerds ond learned of the 
entry of the order of June Lith reciting that by agreementthe jury 
demend was vithdrown aid the case subsitted to the court sad cone 


tinued to June 25th, when the court sitting without « jury entered 


é 


A222 eav% ue sand pasens yawt stew OLE wat ‘gh edt aoaea etd 
wttat eghat eteted begayan od idwow du fod? Wied abdol asf etac 
ert ah ives Lo awelo ony Lei ed OBO wovt Beal odd ad” ‘eae 
mot eese deatt ost? 4@ Lal«d ue (oaks deavt seesxe moon vt 

a ta hen deh” Belsteas |, woe pas’ ab tabi 

aot —*— ad exdYexed? bivow 72 texte wert hat ,* 09) exud fet 
hiss #huateb you Saeverq of tobue mi ces? jeans Wid vie of WE 
HOOk each te yao OL of -Toley DOLE goer We hetew dat Mhael afH 
yt? of bat ext gods ened Yeul @ uae bade One Uede odwate odd BLOF 
ete “evans f'abivce Day Sino ednedrlat eghut oe exad del on® 
axew otad? aid bLos wieLo hkee Tedd yer ytd ee wane ode To Liay 

te lie set bus Ybuwe oxow Jou $Y to Beode eonwe twit Te Levee 
elit couitn sand Kut 2% L eyoh owt oul al Bumea oe fom Diwde kee 
Son hiuye baw yonne qt # sew baa Loo edd ao sitmeves Gav wean 

aed datas xe heouwe of $2°% baotio Ghowt eesae wy To's wEon 

fea Dive anaes aff , ween wd? vol soared set to aateoks wy Beier 
anos: YLaottasorun of Biuew Sud MOO ext ag Lakes xo't Settee ee 
(galviseee vette soi? peobavtne weveesqet oad ne boob ty tow bein” 
«tink sybul of: snow on ,89016 weld Yo! saeaedwdw Out He’ gaily = bia 
stab aofF To Jour ont ToL beyopae benlavey etadd bas nee aha a 
(me hiantotal edd ae yatyles ted? YOOLL avowed trudged fom BEE Bia” 
“nob oct no biw stele etumbes od8°ys edd Morty oe eoonwtvens Bae 

Yo Hhuasex ols SLuaneo TWFieeteds Fon GAP oH | huni: eet s*taabast 
(gh yetab bias ao Yowteds ebam BebtRaogeth ene es) as cose ont 

tase jtabwleo qiwt redampqes eM Picanes of noli aed ar ald gniow 
aid) dreds oxrom gakisyon Duood ayhatORte ahd TOR — — 
— 
ox? 2@ Domsrays bao abrenet oat Rombamce most’ — oa saat ws 
Cewt ut race ergs YH sald ymigLoeT MIDE Oaus to tobto vie Ye extKe 
“ayo hie S4n09 add oF —*2 ened ld bow iscerhdt te sow basme 
mwas⸗ yauta voau 1a —R tuys oad ney AER nul’ oF fe vn 





































a finding and judgment for $350. 

The petition averred that neither dofentant's attormeys 
of record, nor any attorney of aaid firm, nor defendant, nor sny 
person having authority to do ee, appeured in room 1106 on June 
26th, or at any other tine or plece, and waived or withdrew, or 
ecneented er agreed te waive or withdraw defeniant's jury demand; 
that /ne time had defendant or his attorseys or anyone authorized 
by defendant, withdrawn or waived defendant's jury deweand; that 
without authority ef defendant or his attorneys, seme person or 
persons unknown te defendant or als attorneys and mot authorized, 
&ppeared before the gourt in reom 1106 on June 16th, and by fraud, 
accident or mistake, Taisely represented to the court that they 
were the defendant er Rise stiterney, and that defendant waived his 
jury demand, and procured the entry ef the order; that the court 
did net know the representations were falee, without autherity, 
@tca.; that ae a reeult ef the falee representations go made te the 
court and the precuring by fraud, accidect or mistake of the entry 
ef the order on June 16th, the court wae induced to hear said cause 
om June 28th witheut a jury wid to enter an ex parte judgment; that 
on June 4th the court was witheut AnewLedge of the fuet that the 
hearing was belng held without knowledge or eonsent of dofendant 
er his attorneys; that the jury demand wad been wrongfully with- 
dram, that if the court hud had knowledge that the order of June 
i6th was procured by fales representations, he would not have en- 
tered it nor would se have entered a ex parte Judgecnt om June 
28th; that since neither defendant uor hie attorneys nor anyone 
authorized appeared ana waived the jury demand, the order of “une 
16th was clearly erroneous, tut the only proper order was one im- 
panelling a jury end trying the issues, or one centinuing the case 
te the next jury eslendar; that neither plaintiffs ner their ate 


torney ever informed defendsat or his attorneys the case would be 





Seale eet Siawinaysisy Bee —* 
ayviiodsa o' Sandie tes roddlod todd Revieva nol¥tied ent °° 
Yaa tod ,tdedue teh tom ywxtt Blew to qouxetta Yate toa’ bites? Yo! 

eat no BULL mex al bothedge ,o8 oh oF ¥FPronsae yalvet onreg 
Sg werbiitiv xe Review ba jwoelg to sett teddy Yaa He to Sd 
pelts tut w dnaline'tob Wiebe ty 40 oview of Beotgh vo seddNelee 
beultodsia Oneynu 16 eyMAuersc bhi te Sasharted bad ate o 
fad? pbnawsh Yat ol Sauhoe ted boview co austbdb he tielae’teh Ye 
ao aceteg smoa ,wieirrudda alii Yo Fawbine' ted “to yo lreiiva ‘toast 
sboeliulsee tou baw ayediorte whi a9 fanbus'ted of widndad eacetoy 
buat? yd bak (MPL wet wo BOLL woos wl fxvse de Ute tEd 
Weds Fats Judes ould oF Kedasevreet Yloatet clatela te saute 
did bevtdw dushosten déds bad ,ysdsedde etd Ye Dade Oe A 
Piiisn Od? oud! jrobio adé to Yeah ede dereote bie /bdadob GEE 
tditodine Jvoddiw ,oett sxe sno ldedabasrqet eat woud tou skh 
bi} OS Shack Sd Sabiecdnbtiexded od in¥ Sit 16 Vidi S's Ved 
yulds od2 ‘to odetale 46 ddebieda jhuets qd gabrdsetq off Bie Fiube 
oxina bide ‘wesd 02 Aoowhal waw #xaes BAF, NICE Seat ne Yebts OFS 
said ;ducmubut Boxee KB aA HOdde OF Daw CHWe a Perdéth aw Mees ORME ae 
eas fad3 tect ott Yo ogbsiwond shotiie caw Fated ont AgOR ont to : 
‘dnéRas'tes lo saednos 19 eghstwoad guantiw bisd jaléd caw gabxeed 
add iw UListynote noad ber tadadb exit, odd acd peyowtotta dtd to 
bau’ ‘to web<e silt Yad? egbotwonu hud bid grwoo OMe TE ded jawed 
one svad ton bivow od \uinod Soatenauder bb tet Uw Kexteote eae me” 
Snut Ho sae mabut gFiby Ke Ae Hbinsae avad ba Bidow tom’ AE BHR 
 emayas 100 eysitrodda eli Yon bash tén cedd teu dente dead” —— 
‘pau Ye tebto oi (buened qxwt aay boview Baa” bermacgs boettedite — 2 
= san ‘ew tobte taqetq Yino ede eee leurintiinad Yleae te now 80 * 
“eeco ass galuaiducs wae Yo’ abbbed Oia" yAiGaa bab Cut 'a pa: Leena 
“eda thes? tom atiivaiaty cont len tant” ‘paehito'teo Yuk X ° 
af bivow saa odd aysatadse ati 46 suahaete Naish ove eur” 


he 
































ealled Jume 28th, although they were aware they were ready, sable 
and willing te proceed with the trial ef the case; that neither de- 
fendant nor his attorneys were in court on June 26th or had netice 
or knowleige that the couse waa on the call on that date, or that 
the case was then called ond an ex parte finding and Judgment en- 
tered, until execution wae served on defendant, and that defondant 
therefore tad no opportunity ti appear and move to vacate the order 
or Jume 16th; that since, without knewlodge er cousent ef defendant 
er hie attorneys, eald peracn or persons unknewn, appeared hefore 
the court on June 16th, ond by fraud, accident or mistake falsely 
represented thesselves to be the 4efendant er his attorney, and that 
@efendant waived hie jury demand, and eo proeoured the entry of the 
erder; and that since the court did not knew that the representa- 
tions were false ond unsutherised and that defendant or his atter- 
neys had not waived hie jury demand, a fraud was practiced on the 
eourt and on defendant, as a result of whies and without negligence, 
the court was induced te and did enter the ex parte judgment on 
June 28th, and that defendant was prevented from interposing his 
defense, from being present and objecting and excluding improper 
evidence, cross-examining witnesces, or huving the case tried by «@ 
jury; that after June 24th meither plaintiffs ner their attorneys 
ever coumunicated with defendant or bis attorneys to try te procure 
payment of the judgment witheut expense of issuing end serving 
execution, although they knew defendant wae finsnelially reepensible; 
that because of such failure and the delay in having execution is- 
sued ond served, defendant had no kmewledge of the order of June 
16th or jJudgeent of June 23th until mere than days had passed, 
and @o was unable to meve toe vacate same, pray an appeal, or pro- 
eure bill of exceptions during the tern, wid so his rewnedy at law 
was lost excest by this preceeding; that defendant and his attorneys 


have used due diligence and were antitied to rely and did rely on 





, 


ehte ,yhoot oxew ysdt oxawe exo | yess igatasid La (eS dich batten 
oh tadilon sud? jomeo edt De, nies oat dav booaerq of galiiie bows 
eolies bed to S780 ont oe semen ah saw ROTTER LA etd tom 2 a vet | 
dac? xe ~etsh tect as Lino 98d 99 4a wae ot fad? qube tent a0 
“ue goomout ban paleas? goseg ge ne baw boliee macs — 
a teh Jaci bas .tmhas ish mo bevtes saw aoliupone Llday , hone 
TOTO Ol SFaesy OF oYOR baw capaGa oF YERAWeTOGge Om bad ovaton iat 
saabarieb 19 tHeanns so eRde Iyer. fuodtiw ,goake tance D— — 9— 
sreted beiwogge ,MwoudAy BaoRteY te Hoateq blag. ten | 139,94 30 












 giveiet edateia to fashioss ,buwrt yi hae ,8t8L anv ao dase 
fede bas ,yowtotdn sid co damhup toh edd od 9f aoylocmods begapewaqe 
exis to ytsas salt horUS0TG pm hae dammed yawt ad Bovka “tsananto 
oStheagtqes ee Pent weed Jom b&b Ptwoe o88 gonke tact ban. ; 30 : @ 
teite aid 10 Janka teh fe hae peabtedgeaas, han oeiat expe eneht 
ote Ho Reotiourg saw buat « ,bamms yruk ad Sovlew Jom beg axon 
arog iqnn tuedéiv has etow te tive @ am ,taahno tod mp, sat ause 
Aca toompbal eign Be ede wedoe n a¢ bapw * ig 
six gauiseqtosul aezt bagaeverq sew sanhae'ten tang ana ,HsOS 
—seqeigat yalieluas bas gaidestde bas fapaeug wes HGth 4@ 
@ 4G Solve esag ect gabvad to ,seneoniiw gaks databace 
ayerietéa tleds tom atiisaiate todd sen 408, nai, taste sass 
— OF KF OF ayRCtOlse BLA to Amebatoh Atte potas taustno, 
| galvecs bee goivest ‘to seneque seeds te soomt ad 2 se 
;oidtanequas tlintoawal? oaw sonnet wel wet cigars i 






































— s0%G TO fangue Ae Yare mane Ateoay of gvom od fy 
i tak da Ybonet ald om baw ,atet eds yortuh emobeqver 
y  exomtotie wld how tamhaw'tad sadd jaabhoogota abit we Go OKe | 
| ag gto DAD hae ULow OF ROLE ON ORD W ban OpaDELELD 4) 








statements of the minute clerk that the case could not be heard 
before adjournment for the summer because of large number of 
eases anead of it, and it would be automatically continued to the 
September jury calendar; and also ugem the facts that defendant 
hed filed a jury demand and it had net been waived, that ne jury 
trial of the case having been Had gsricr te June loth, and ainece 
the clerk said it would be placed on the Geptexber jury calendar, 
they need not wateh 1¢ of conault the records until Gepteaber, and 
that they could saesume that ne persom would imoercperly appear and 
falsely represent to the court that defendant waived hie jury de- 
mand; and therefere defendant and Sis attiorneye did net consult 
the records, 

Defandast slee averred that be had a meritorieus defense 
te plaintiff's dewand as set forth in the affidavit of merite, 
which was set up in detail but widen it ia mot necessary to re- 
eite at length. 

Tae prayer of the petition was that plaintiffs might be 
required tc anawer, the ex parte Judgment vacated, the order of 
June 16th vacated and expumgéd, and plaintiffs mjolned from en- 
fercing the judgeent. 

Plaintiffs anewered admitting the proceedings up te June 
A3th, smd that the cause om that date was upem the regular jury 
call, which, however, hud been discontinued pursusnt to o general 
rule entered by the Chie Justice; that the jury trials, however, 
were being continued in the room ef Judge 2elander before when the 
case was cending for ancthar week, Pilaintiife averred that on 
that date attorney for defendant appeared in court and requested 
a further continuance beesuse of an absent witnesa; tuat the 


trial Judge then stated tumt if the continuance was granted there 


Was emali likelihood ef the case being heard as a jury case; that 


&. 
& 

CY goatee Sie 

bined * sed pete 2046 ott tase pine abi. * 8 poster 

‘to tedama ggzat te oauensd Temee of? 40% om en 

eae od boumitaco Yiloaliasotum ed biwow 3h baw , th 1° pris Sm 
$a fasted fact atest gilt segs eete diy stahne Lon eT —— 

¢twt, om sede ,bevlaw wood fea bast ah Sime banand yaa a bot had ) 
Shale ban, Ades oewl 9¢ tolig bed ceed gatwad one ode, 20 tone 
_stabaoles (uit, tedassqe’ saz a0 basa tg ag Phuow 4% ‘2 mee, ode 
has ,roduntqet iktay shzoves edd sfusupe x9. ah Hosew ton hawy edt, 
bus teva yltoqerqal divew meoteq oa tact emunee kwon qadd, * 

woh xxst aid hoviaw dasbaeteh gods suven M2 9% snoRezGes y : 


(gdusace fom bib ayoaredsa add haw smaban tad axe teresd, an, sda 




















onne ten —— a sat ed dad hexzave Rela saahewkes comm 
_ stdizem Yo sivabl te edd ab dae? 498 94, baaaeh aims ce Tal 
— of Yxmeseeen Fon wt Gh Mohiw tud Lieteb at Ht 00, nan Mabey, 


od sat atiigatesg sautd ase w sensing 00 tea — ost, — ae | 
ry wire ed2 ,bedscey tapiaqabub —* 








—— — * dbl 5 oft " — say save 
Me gels berzwva atiigaials .heew resis eie 16k galhowg sow Came 

do a oupsa has diver A. beravqge. saad» Tob, 40%. yoanatia stab dest 
aid 053 jaoeatin sasade aa to sausged, wpaeontsace twee @ 
wieds hetawty paw sonewatinoo, odd BL dadld, dente. anas.ombith dele 


bade sone, xs, « aa bized yaled — — 





the attorney for defendant then stated that if the case sight be 
continued to June 16th and if it appeared at that time that a jury 
trial could not be had he would waive the jury and submit the 
case to the court; that it wae Ais jury demand; that thereuven the 
case Yas continued to Tune 1léth. 

The answer denied that any persen or persons appeared on 
Tune 16th falaely representing to be the defendant or hie attorney 
and waiving the Jury demand, but on the contrary stated that the 
duly authorized attorney of defentant appeared before the court in 
room 1106 on June 16, 193%, and waived and withdrew the jury de- 
mand; that om that date, after the opening ef the court oid upon 
the regular call ef the case in ite turs, attorney for defendant 
Fesponded and stated to the court that he wae engaged or about te 
become engaged before another Judge and could not try the cune; 
that the jury demand wae a joint demand: that defendant would 
Waive it and understood piaintiffs would siso; that the sourt ine 
structed plaintiffs to wait and the attorney for defendant te make 
sure hie other ease was actually geing te trial; that thereafter 
on said date, it having been determined that defendant's attorney 
was actually engaged and the jury demend having been waived by 
beth parties in open court, the order was entered and the case 
eontinued te June 26th for hearing before the court, at whieh tise 
the ex parte juiguent was entered. 

the cause was heard by the court upon the issues as thus 
made up, and at the cenglusion of the evidence the order appealed 
from was entered, ; 

The proceeding involves a construction of section 21 of 
the Municipal Court act (Seith-iurd's 113. Kev, State. 1951, chap. 
37, sec. 21, p. 946) which provides that every judgment, order or 
decree of the Municipal court final in ite nature shall be subject 


to be vacated, set aside or modified in the seme manner an4 te the 





od ¢igie cane edd Rt dont detate aesdd dawhawteh rot yomrotta od 
vist a dec? emi? Sods fe botesdga 22 ti bad 401 omvt of homatinde 
edd Phodse bie (awl och Welaw Binew ea bed dt oton bided abies 
ad mequetsdd Sasi) pbasdob Yast wid enw $f dads jduddn dated Cea 
*89an walt ¢ ‘Siwat tied baN de 
‘ae keteoyae scowteq ro —E ‘tits sodt heldeh cower ‘ett aan 
yeotatte ei ay raatny tet sat ad ef salvnceercet * dior * oe 
eats genlt Deteds ytetined wut no fod bite rut edt yatylan 
WR pawEd oul? Gxo'ted Sevecdye Gnohno teh Lo yoardTt . 
eb pat, eit wothieie boa povtaw Baw — — 
aoa bine Huiod rie "Xe gubtined Bite weet | sive lt “is tal 
Sembee ted “ot qearerse joner ask od uso oH? ‘te flee xatuy 
63 gagde to begegte aaw ex july e198 end od bedads ewe eee 
“yhwee eat CHP 6H bivon Sie wabut TDiltban wae Di —XR 
I—oo—— 2 wow cn ee te | 
oat dies eAe Gand ;oale dieow attietory aote vial 
elem of Jan hss ted tet yeuredta eas Ame ghee ot wvntratiaty sates | 
T8P tnerhds tand pikdxd od Anlog ULsavtod daw’ eaee Yeddd . 
qortodte a Simi no'teh thd tonleredel Beed galvall ek * ie 
4d Béview goed palynd baaset Yast @8% Bae Bogegath 
geno e423 hae tetedae aw cebts off . Paves “abao a —** 
aah? Aobtie Fa slag eas —* Ab Rot avec ‘ont ‘ov —E 


xa oad 





















” pétida ode Piedjiut’ giung 

Gund ‘te ended? eth aoqe 220d a) hud A bids te Am, 
bosavnes rotd as sus weabbive ons Ye — * a * bet —2* 

ae ucä ——— satel: eevee — i 

gate \s80L .92nd8 vee £22 athewtladdteO) eee sieed teqetaie ede 

49 tebto ,fasayheh yous gad ashiverg debdie (860g oo ee ee 


“Soutden md Linde ersten eG et Lond ma ESR A 


we 








same extent as a judgment, order or decree of a circuit court dur- 
ing the term at which the same was rendered in such Circuit court, 
provided a motion to vacate, set aside or modify the same be en- 
tered in the Municipal court within thirty days after the entry 
of such judgment, order or decree; that if no motion to vacate, set 
aside or modify such judgment, order or decree shall be entered 
within thirty days after the entry of the judgment, order or decree, 
the same shall not be vacated, set aside or modified excepting upon 
appeal or writ of error, “or by a bill in equity, oF by a petition 
to said Municipal court setting forth grounds for vacating, setting 
aside or modifying the same, which would be sufficient to cause the 
same to be vacated, set aside or modified by a bill in equity; 
Provided, however, that all errors in fact in the proceedings in 
such case, which might have been corrected at common law by the 
writ of error coram nobis may be corrected by motion, or the judg- 
ment may be set aside in the manner provided by law for similar 
cases in the circuit courts." 

This section of the statute has been often construed by 
this court and by the Supreme court, and it has been held that a 
judgment order or deeree of the Municipal court shall become final 
and conclusive after thirty days from the entry thereof; that after 
that time it may be set aside or modified only (1) by appeal or 
writ of error, (2) by a bill in equity, (3) by a petition to the 
Municipal court in substance the equivalent of a bill in equity, 
(4) by a motion analogous to that provided for by section 88 of 
the Practice act, and (5) in any manner provided by law for 
similar cases in the Circuit court. 

The proceeding here, at least in its final phase, was by 
petition in the nature of a bill in equity. The brief of plaintiffs 
seems to be based upon the theory that the proceeding was similar 


to that under section 8 of the Practice act, and it points out 





“rub txyoo tivetio s to setseb ig tebte — oomabul, & 88 smodue oaae 
,ftvoo tiuetlo cove af betebnet esw emae on? io beiw ta met ent aot 
-me sd emaa ont yiibom to oblas sea ,etsoev ot gations bebivers 
yiine et todte ayesh ytaulds aidsiw 109 feqtolaull ens at e 

tee ,edsosy os aoljom om ti seds j;e9eT09b 10 teht9 ,imemphut Howe to 
heteine ed Lisnhe eetoeh to 19bto ,inemahul, dove ¥ttbom to obias 
.89%Seh to tehbto ,Jnomgbut ed? to -yxiine edd se#te |ayed Noakes fey gore 
ogy galiqeoxs beltibom to ebiee Sea ,botsoay sd ton ifede omee edt 
soititeq a yd To vstupe at Litd sa yd <0" ~toTtr9 to sitw to taoqas, 
gaistes ,gaigscoav Tol abawuorg ditot gatises x00 Lagi otnwit bisa ot 


A BBSe 
ett saves of tusloltive ed biLuow doidw ,omse ould yaby2ibom 0 obtea, 


— 





xXatupo ng {Lid « yd Bbeitibom 10 ebies hed Sodaoav od ot , 

fs 4 Bani besoorg eft az gox2t al etoxrte Iles fast  tevewod —— 
ans yd wal somos te betostt0o need evad sig ta Ho istw 19880 Howe 
-gbut edt to ,aoltom yd hesosxt0eo ed yea pidon acaee ⁊ox⁊xo to stew 
telimita tot wel yd bebivorq reanem etit at eblas tee od (au tom 

" -sdxs09 # tworts outs od “soane 

es beutsenoo aetto aesd esr etutate edt to aoitosa eldT —— 

& jadi bied seed aad st bas ,stuop ome tque oxts ud bis aruoe ekiit 
fantt emooed iisre gruo9 LeqtotauM edt To a20 ⁊ to tebtoe snpmebay 
wotte teds ;toexed? yitse ols mott aysh weiss xests eviestonoo bas. 
to fseqqe yd (£) yfno beht thom to obias Joa ed yom ti emis tas 

sit of moisiseq a yd (&) ,ysivpe ai LLid ⸗ yd (&) ,toT7Te to Shaw 
eytiupes at {Lid sto tneleviupe ed sonatadue at —— faqto tauu 
to es mottose yd rot bebivorg sad? of auogolens nottom a yd (a) 
tot wel yd bebivotg teanem yas at (2) base , sos solsonrt oat 

E -Siuvoo tivorl9 edt at aoaso sethete 

yd eaw ,osedq fenit adi at Jaaol ta ,otedd gabbssoorg edt inn tal 
attitatetq to teted eft .ysinpe at Liid 2 ‘to J— oad at notthteg 
telinis saw gatheesetg ods sad ytoed? edt noqu boaad od ot amen 


guo etntog ti baa ,ton eolvossd ent to @& maiten robaw tans of 


a ee Ris 


certain errors from that standpoint. The preceeding by analogy to 
section 8 of the Practice act ia easentially differmt from the 
proceeding by petition. A motion undet section 89 is set addressed 
to the equitable powers of the sourt. it is purely and eclely a 
proceeding at law and not in equity. 
Geltjen, 189 Tl. 83; Loew v. Kraugpe, 320 Til. 244; Coultry vy, 
Yellow Cab Co., 25% 111. App. 443, It ie the usual practice to 
hear a motion ef that kind om affidavits and sounter-affidavite. 
Mh. 149 Tl. 426; Gensolidated Coal Co. vy. 
Geltien, 19% Til. 88; Demtteki » 











310 Til. 170, 

Ve have held that the preeeeding by petition under section 
21 confers on the Municipal court of Chicage such power to vaeate, 
eet aside or modil'y the gudguonts of that court as a courtoof equity 
gould exercise in « similar case under analogous proceedings. 
imbrie vy. Bear, 230 11). App. 155; Lead vy. Imlongn, 244 113. ADP. 
90; Felley v. Klein, 287 231. App. 171; Finden v. Rly, 36 121. 
170. ‘the pleadinge and the preceedings here were in gubstanee 





@imilar to those in equity, amd the recor¢d mast be reviewed from 
that standpsint. The rule in equity wits reference to the modifi-« 
cation or aetting avide of a Judgment by a court of law after the 
expiration ef the term at whieh it was entered, is well settled 

by the ence. It is that a diligent defendant, who, vithout neglie 
gence or fraud on hie part, has been prevented by fraud, secident 
er mistake from presenting a good and meritorious defense to a 


cause of action, may have the judgment entered against him set 


< & 
et 


8 
— ie em eee eee 
— * bie FDA Se ie FRYERD BRS 


G8 oddne yd gatbesoony eat” ——9 daitd — ‘elas’ ro ahed 
















“O83 mott Savi WEES YLieto meene ak sae wokdount cs ‘to 8 akdiin 
| pecmtnne vane WO: agitaes tebe aoksam A stedstdeg Yd galbeos 
(oes a RSROD Bat Yong ad PL ended “ode Yo "Siviveg Ohad tape i be 
a ee — eelune E460 fini wiit ba yin 
oe ee ee ee eT 





(yee Lat GOL gabe ges 
of wotzcarg Saved ede af ¢3 ‘ee Me: vant se os in seme. bal 


| moktichh wr'nwt “One tiga Led Uae at 







ag?!” 
* 
—— 
Zim DL eS 
: ° 
* * a age 






. * >is meres 
aoltves tehay avisiveg yd gatbeooorq ote Fail ‘pie ovat oF — 
——— oo xowog Howe eyeetdd Ye Faves ftmqtobail wie —ERE * 
Hi at too sxu0s Re BiMOd Tad 2e esasaghuy ast VUEboM 0 whited five 
a | ayakboeherg eoyoiaus soba eeob taifake a ah welorexs bivos | 
| @NGGA 4401: 609 hues wy tam 120k Leek parr oeee ee sliish 


—— OF8 (yhiedS .y wegeee 3200 sq SREY Tee r 708 
i (gonnsadue at ote oxed agulbeengrg ott dae — otk 
| get beweivor o¢ ese’ Atenet sir Baw [er bene” at eect of tathate 
| «h'thbow ont (Of eone ete7 40 be qebips ab ofet ant” -dabogbuase” thud 
odd r0d¢%a wat to sab0s wy sowmybot oto abhen pattode wo alten 
‘ elsten Show ed pboxedue eaw dh donk’ da rbd’ aid to Rosbathqns 
ak tye sesso jose ,sashdnten fabsate a au bh’ HT "Ledeen one xe 





 faeb bess phew? yd heeadvete aided aad {2aeq ahi de buat? 28 so00y — 


} . : + 1g a, it Zz 
ie tea mtd todlage botetal dneagtul odd evod yam, aol —* 





10 


aside upon application and proof of such fucte to a court of 
equity. Owena v, Henstead, 22 ILL. 163; How vy. Mortell, 28 Iii. 

pmmki, 144 Lkl. 284; Pinden vy. Skelly, 310 
Tid. 270; Lned vy, Islongo, 24% Lk. App. 90. 


The gontrolling question in this case, ae we view it, is 





whether the order entered by the court is ¢learly and nani fently 
againet the evidesee, Defendant cites authorities to the prepe~ 
sition that the meticn under section 41, ilke that under section 
&% of the Practice act, cannot be used to contradict the recerd. 
We do not question that preposition ag applivable to a proeseding 
by way of motion under section & or ae analegeus to it, but as 
already etated thie greeeeding, at ieaet in ite final phase, was 
met of that character, 

Berecver, there ia no attempt Bere to contradict the 
record, There is no dispute aa to that the record showa er aa 
to what the record is, but it is esontended that the ordera which 
Were undoubtedly sade were mmtered througe mistake and aecident 
and, indeed, defendant's petition sileges that these orderea were 
fraudulently obteined. Ye do not think the evidence would justify 
a finding of fraud, but apparently the trial Judge soneluded that 
in the exereise of the chancery povers granted by the statute ,under 
the evidenes he could reasonatiy find that defendant iu good faith 
intended to interpose a defense to the claim of plaintiffea and wae 
prevented through inadvertence, accident or mistake from presenting 
it. 7 

We have given attention te the evidence of the parties vith 
reference to these issues. There is conflict ae ts what occurred. 
Plaintiff dennedy, whe was present on June 1éth, says that defend- 
ant's attorney, Ste Hokin, told the court that he would waive the 
jury. A Br. Telegerber, who was present ae « witness for piain- 


tiffs, says that the afterneys for defendast told the eourt they 


48 

a 

SOA : 
! 9 


| 
Yo d1n09 @ of etoc't dewe to Yoong hae aatsuo2sogs mogu abten 
att ax” -sdanaal.¥ sa — .ft2 BS \fensenes Jy aawet ‘eotupe” 5 
: f gatme’ 98% £47 oat y, ed ‘yore 3 
, 00 gk. LEX Be Lg _a¥_igsk (Orn. 
at .¢2 wele ow un ace aus ad woldeoup yalliettacs ost po Rad OM « 
sg ktae hina baw Gitaede «fh dwen oft yd bowstas ceBro ont costtaatw 
-oqeig edt Ub Wel! Prousad eedle tmabaset .eenektve att . 
aoktoow wehiw sunt oAtf £9 aptsood tose mottom oar Goat molitd 
siever end tuthextaon of Beuw ed Podimo , ton wottuned edi’ te Oe”. 
| aatboowong sof addnei tags 4s dokzivevord feds aolvssup Joa ob OH 
ga Gud (2b 08 suegekuae wa 46 @ aetdqos cobaw notton to ive 
| — ams ‘tant eft ak seuek fe yalbeesets aid? Detdsa ybartle® 
FRR Latha 8 Be tettns dtl 16 20a 
4 et: adsbdt nes: 'nt Wied tated ott — — 
ee eG attest 9Oes OMY sade oF Os etwquth wa ed eewa?  Jhsee fhe 
dohiw guhto eit sadt beduwtace ak t1 dud yak deoows eit vat ot 
| gawpteed bans oxatudn dyuertd Sere¢xs oxew oda ae: dus 
| #eew @ughte seers Jat eoyo lia note ited’ s rulba ts 
Ciksaut Bivew venobive ety kadar sen wh OF” Boutarde ¢ Lt — Lubin 
Sait bobwlone oybul Lutte ont Viravtingh Sad hued: Yo ydibal we 
| Rebus, OF ste Te ont ud bevancy evewed ybodass ety to seteene alt at 
( dbtw't S009 ak Pumbaw'teh Fouls DAY Yisaaowned Bivid oH oninel: i" 
 gew ban eTTitaLes; Yo winte skit of SHRI » emaduesal oF! ° bnosut ~ 
Ritsnewntd GbXE eXated Xo Fimbloos edie sie vbwitl Hyuodiy SH: 










































| dtdw wokttbg bet Yo enables oe of mitnosia avviy oved ‘9° nab ae 
boriese tedv of 8 JolRuoe Tt oven? eeied! saad oo ooabsetied? 
sheeted fai yee SL onal mo SepAeTG Raw ecw , ybonnet VERE aba 
| edd eview bivow o6 tam sxmod oie hive! aliied Shit \qumneteeetvee 
-alaig tot aabutin & um Casenxq eaw only 4 eedrepelew ia AO eee 








il 


had a case before another Judge that would come up for trial. The 
witness saye that he sould not give the exact conversation but that 
the Judge eaid he would weit to see how it eteed; and, "That ie all 
I cam recall. There was talk about waiving the jury demand on both 
the 1Sth and the 16th. On the 16th something wae sald that they 
would be ready and would waive the jury provided it could not be 
heard by o jury. I believe Lt was fte Hokin whe eaid it.” 

the attorney for plaintiffs teatified that defendant ree 
guested the case be set for June 16th; thet the court stated he had 
@ Humber of spacialiy set cases that would oooupy alaost ail the 
time left, ané that if the eane went over te June 16th there was 
tmmll Likxelinoed of ite being heard ag a jury gave; that attomey 
for defendant etuted in response that if 1t might be set for fune 
26th and if it aspeared then 1% sould not be Aeard as a jury case, 
defendant would waive the jury, and that the ecuse was thereupon con- 
tinued to Jume 16th. He further saye that on June 14th he went into 
court, saw one ef the plaintiffs, br. Aewmedy, and kr, Weisgerber, 
end that Kennedy stated he had anewered tt Gali “and ta Nokin had 
anewered and had stated that it waa a sated poems and defendant had 
waived the jury, underetoed tae plaintiffe were wiliing to waive | 
it;" that he went te Judge Pairbank's eourt where he found piaiatirf 
seated at the table, with the jury in ie toa, but ne witness on the 
etand, Se further testified: "1 said to Ste Hokin, ‘I see you are 
tied up here -- probably for all day?’ He said "Yes." i said, 'Wel} 
we oertainly can't try the kennedy euse.' He aaid, ‘éo.' I said, 
‘There is no need of my staying arocundthere then. We will just have 
to get another date.* Ae aaid, ‘Yes, any date that is agresable te 
the Court #ili be eatisfactory to me.'’" The witness further etated 
that Bw went back te reom 1106 and asked the clerk te have the 
C682 Omlled again; that it was called in a few minutes, at which 
time he stated to the court that he had found Ete dokin wae defie 


65 as 
: 


oat .Sebtd tot qu omps bioow Jane sgbut tesitem axcted gna e bad 
fects td aplzaerevans Yeexo sat ovrly toa hivew oA sats ayn seendiw 
Sim a2 dade" hoe phootw 32 wot ave o% thaw Adwow cof bhae vbat ·a2⸗ 
sod wo basasd yuat od? gaiviaw tuoda died aew execth Aaoon fe 4, 
youd Susi? Bien saw gaiivemos APO ocd af .ceaL od Bae Mate ot 
ed fen bingo #3 Rebivosg vat, ocd avian bivow Bac hans od bhwow 
4.7 flan oc nhie® aff sew th eveliod 2 agtmt «ee agaes. 
oot foahem teh gait beltigas? altigaiale 102 Benes Os Sam eat an: — * 
bot an bedere Piaee edt äkusl sow iol doe od esse Gud Sedennp 
 “@89 Lia sesaia yquoos binow gad? acaas tou yetabekin the Gdn 
> maw oxods 20s amt of ove Same wace emt Th duct hud eee winks 
 Yomrokde sadd jouse TUE 4 as bias yaled Bed Te hoodbfedts: 2 
enut «ek gee ed suigha 32 th sad? seagqens eage Jam. ts! 
onnd “tel eda brand 06 tom —— oan 7 
ee sequetedd saw eeee aa% gady bas (Xtah eas Ovdaw Divow fasban teh 
ofak suew esi 2OL nut ao tadd ayan weserut oH sdtOe seu et bewats 
,tediegele” .cH baa ,yboutss 2% jeTidealatg oft Re tao eer eee 
tent altel tH bus” -_ * hera awe aa bod of u ait bam 
‘hes taabsoted bas Sanuni\ Gabel a eaw th tadt pedade bad dns hexewens 
9 q@irkiow OF Qakikdw oxew etthtalebe eas bootargbay .cauh ot Revtaw 
“Mituale hawet of wrededaueg ehdandskel eghwl oF eae ed tase "yak 
oar ng aasathecem tut kod edt at gust est cede ,efdad ede. te betes 
ems wot ooo If ,abtoh of% OF ban’ I" “thetteteeds todten? on shaate 
fie (bia to * eek! bine Oh Mtyeh cde ast ykdedorg: «« ove gw hele . 
~Bine I * ou’ ,blse oS ' eee vhommed ody yst Fano xtata⸗ roe ow 
oved taut Lite oF .nod? oxeutbavire gargesa CaZs deem of af one J 
bP eldepw nye ai taol sieh you ,eet* , dive oh ‘ated retitaas 208 oo 
betade widvwt aacnthy off 8" em ot yLodontelses, ed Lite txwed bell ns 
ost ora of nde wa Qaane tan QOGE ator 6F 400d dna: tae 3 
Hoiaw ge \kodinte wet @ aL bolZan anw. #2 taule) palege elie ence 
ated saw biol af% Baws’ — betate wt eke 



























12 


nitely engaged; that the court seked him if the plaintiff wae willing 
te waive the jury in the case, and he said he wee; that he bad 
always been willing, and that the court eald, "Well, we will just 

set it down for a day them for hearing without a jury;”" thet he 

(the witness) replied that was ecorreet; that the court said, “June 
26th" and inetructed the clerk te continue the cuse fer hearing be~ 
fore the court, “jury walved."” On crose-examination this wituesa 
said that the attorney for defendant agreed en June Lith te waive 


the jury demand, but that *i_pever beard bi: 





Gn the contrary, wi avsouiute of Ets lickin testiries that 
he Was present on June Lith; tuat atterney for gieintiffe indlonted 
he wae wiliise te waive thé jury; that Eis iekin sisted that wae 
agreeable to him, “but ge would hove toe confer with bis 
Tere Ke gould waive 44.* Yods witness testified positively that 
he was Bet ia the ceurt room on June ié6th. tocbhert Sis Kokin testi« 





fied that hea did mot en June 15th abaslutely agrees te waive tie jury 
but merely stated that be did not knew ef any reasen why it sould 
not be waived, althougs he would Have to talk with defendant whe 
had the final “say” in the matter, He said that en June 16th vhen 
4n the court he 4i4 not see either Kennedy 6r Selsegerber and did net 
reburn to tne courtroom that morning, 

in # preegeding of thia kind, where the Judge wie entered 
the erder is siso the judge hearing the petiticn, and “here the court 
after hearing confiicting evidence makes a finding, we tink a court 
of review should hesitate to find te the contrary, since the trial 
judge has most unusual advantages in welghing the evidence. We can 
not eay that the finding ef the court is manifestly wrong. if the 
demang for jury trial by defendant wag not waived, as the court held, 
then the eourt was without jurisdiction to enter the rinai judguent, 
ang finding and order granting defendant a trial upon the merits 
should be affirmed. lt in net neewesury te discuss the many autheri- 









gatiite asw Titdataty oad te wha bola daued wat ‘gait how ane yfedtn 
hist ost Hast jouw oa biwe od bine joane Oils at Yiut odd Ovlow Oe 

~ gawt Lite ow .ctee Voltas Prwoo oly ba0 Bah’ pak lk apd egewie 
on Sait * pee & dwedsitw gutkaed Zot wba) Geb a ter awed Fi tee 4 

omut” \Rine tives Gdy Pande {Poexxes sow add belignt (agensiw odd) 
«94 yatvand Yet eago eae ewal¥aod 09 Xuelv 98d bedoutieat baa esos . 
anoatiw bid? dette bteesdsudere bd ©”. béview yewt® dawes bad OS08 
gvkaw of s962 eaul ae — —— — net yourette odd on — 











—oooooo———— 
——oooo,——— ao —n—n— 
‘eaw tandd besete abled eff taut iemit on —* od —— * 
‘Gadd Ylovisiaog bettioass eoeadiw eke? 
wheeee AlAd aot Seidod VEL edu beet Hee ee 
eret ead ovlaw of so4ye ylodoséade WEL edut me Fou bID oa! soil Hin 
Piweo #2 yaw aosnex yus te wom dom blh od Had —_— vie 
| gew "dadbnetes adtw xia’ oF b¥Ad biww od Oyuads te beviaw o 
“bate PSE omit ato! Had) Kida om” node aia’ ead ad Yaa" — 
a Bi Bisa — —— ose doa bth ‘od sto oad me 
ia © gititda ‘sald hadietaid ear —* 
‘forsee orw oyhwt ent exodw’, batt ala te gaipsseote a ax’” °°"? - 
five edt wtedw pan woktized att yatreod eyhal odd cata at wanes 
 deeoe o debcd ow jaalbelr? a coded somshivs gat¥oifiace galresd thts 
deite ods oonla ,ytersaeo O09 oF Hatt of ssodteed Siwoce wolves ‘te 
noo @W secnettve od yiltiyiow at wegsdaavhs Ladetas “sdem gud egbut 
“edd HE “syntw Ylao thaedl et diveo wld “26 gainalt odd “Gadd (as don 
»bfed Puss e867 a» ,bevia® tea daw duatine ted @ ‘tates eat 20 “Seamed 
,taemghst, teat edi wear of noite babu dhodeiw aww rime 8 oad mods 
‘Bekten odd AoGv Lalas & ¢usbacted galvasty ꝛesio ‘Pas ‘Satsang 
ehuoiitbs Yuide Bid eevontb os Gissdsoed doa wh 91” shone ita oe “his 





























13 


ties, of which we cite a few, IJobrie v. Sear, 2355 133. App. 155; 
dani vy. Isionze, 243 111. App. 00; Belhey v. Biein, 257 Lil. app. 
171; amd De Stefane v. Miiog, 865 111, App. Sho. 


The order of the hunicipal oourt is affirmed, 
ATTIRED, 


Returely, *. J., and O'Conner, J., coneur. 








* too 


ike Bx: — J 
— — ———— — sees tomes 


wid ag eee ere bees — Sent dows ae aaa 4 


nerircot ar wed ede — cms * —ED 











ti. wher ete lif — Aee 


heeded: 18 wk rivstiaisin we . yawned tg peels — init * coer 
‘tae? test we sant ‘atti 8* F Laon hs — ies fans 4 





wand “bers Ewan 





aaa eibity: wee - etodey' atk pea ‘oy 





———— wee se awe ae bation — mNataaon aes al — — ekg 













J sid Sa uu i : a na ‘bisa bigs i on ile per — 


toh Ba Bike — i) wie APT goa to" bed dav 
————— — i ea ‘esi: % 


he vere sine —— nas call — u * — 





a 


Ra ee ; “sine tee: ede * wn ede Lane 
walt’ “a vane — ————— dives add ct ‘ae aes 
— —E tea hav Lay faa haw maosids a we — 
Fag cat ieee? aut cod ce ‘ps oita dba bout —E 
—* thie a Fading Yo pats i 
w? igi a, een wi jg ———— avi tea 





J, MORRIS, (Plaintiff), aa | 


APPEAL FRGM MUNICIPAL CoURT 
OF CHICAS. 


— 
36562 — aera) ae } ‘ 
— ⸗ — x 7 
oe j ; 
wet { 
ast — dl 
ANT e 
— 
ve 


Appellee, 
vs. 


) 
) 
) 
IDA FISKEL and MORAIS | 
FINKEL, (Defendanta). 

E 


On Appeal of BRAXARD JaDvIBb 
an@ MILTON JOHNSON, Doing 
Business eae STATE SECURITIES 
GOMPARY, (Garnishees), 
Appellante. 


270 L.A. 625° 


®R, JUSTICE MATOHETT DELIVERED THE OPINIO“ GF THER COURT, 


J. Morrie, judgment erediter of Ida Finkel and Sorris 
Finkel, caused a garnishee summons to be issued against Bernard 
Jadwin and Eilten Johneen, doing business as Utate Securities 
Company. The garnishees anewered under oath that nothing wae due 
and that they had no preperty of the judgment debtors in their 
poseession. There was a trial by the court and a finding for 
Plaintiff Worris for $636.25, from which the garnishess appeal. 

it ie eomtended in the firet place that there ia no evi- 
dence in the record shich, upon any theory, would sustain a judg- 
ment against Hilten Jehnson. Am exanination ef the reeord die- 
Closes that thie contention is correct. We have searched the 
recer4 in vain for any evidenee tending to shew a liability on the 
part of Milten Jennson. Indeed, plaintiff, challenged by this 
argument, replies in his brief by referring to a statement made by 
counsel for garnisheesic the effect that he represented Bernard 
Jadwin end Wilton Jehneon, doing business as State Securities 
Company, amd to the facet that when the court asked counsel for 
garnishees whether his client was one of the ce-partners (meaning 
with Milton Johnsen) he 414 not wake any denial of the partnership 
relationship. Piaintiff further replies that garnishees in their 


anewer made ne sueh denial. 


“205 21 ye 





+ x 





ie sanae 
, — ar * 
sookSench © i 





faved daar szuM wit * 
OATHS 1 


Spar ee te gate 
Claim: 7 Saudi t aah 

— — Aaxau 
WIVCAL CHANARM Yo —— * 





oye et 


-TA990 ENT GO BOLEIGO GHG CRNAVIdAC TREHOTAM MOTRGVL . Aa 


sixtek baw fedad? obl te xedibexe tasaghut ,eitre — i 
branted tesinye bevel ed of eaomave sodetarey « Seauen , 109 att g 
SL82eneOl ssus@ an wooatend gato ,aeandet no?iit bem whwbat 
gxt saw gation tas? dane Tabane bexowe me eoodelatag eat ms 
tiode af sxogdod sasaghel ad? Io yoregete om bat one ‘olay ona 
“ot gaibalt « hae sxuon of y dalis # saw oneett sto leeeeaoq: 
.deseqe eoonalatey od? voice amet 28.008) <ot aivted Tiiake fq 
sive on ah sxedt tadd sonig saxit oi? at bebesdaos af 92 | 
wpbut a auteur Skuow ,vteedd yar neq ,dokie bresee ent al dome 
~aib Breer: adit Yo apiiaalwexe aA .soenael aedkis tealepe tem 
aus Decioxnes ovat © .doertes at apbrmetace abe? todd sovote 
ant ne etiiidads 2 woile of yathass eoaebive yae t6? atav at & " 7 
aldt qd bbedoetiede ,Yridatete ,hosbal .noannet neds * bir : 
ys eham Suscstata «2 od amivre'tes ad takes eid oh seiient ,2aee ie 
Sramred hednonotayx od sands goo'tte en? osaeodelemag tot Lesson 
we iittwoek watt es enoaieud gated ,mowaiot mos £2 bow utente 
20% Lesaues bees Sxm0o ed? wesw dad? Seat auld ot baw vesnanod 3 
geianea) wteniiag~-oo od To eae aew fae kes alt tenses 3 sie ta ¢ } 
qiderosting sd? Lo isimeh yaa eden tou BLA of (aouaiot const ae — 
shesd ak eeodeltarag saxid web iqes qodtaat Wikentett qtienottater 
i seve on 
































It ie true that when the meubers of the partnership were 
Summoned as garnishees they made no denial of the existence of the 
partnership, and as we understand it they do not now deny the ex- 
istence of the same; but these facta cannot in any way be taken as 
eonceding the liability of the members of the partnership as gar- 
nishees. 

The contrelling question te be determined upon the trial 
was whether the partnership susumened at the time ef the service of 
the writ owed the judgment debtors anything or had property, 
eredite, ete., in ites possession belonging te them. If it be 
conceded that one of the partners ae on individual had sueh funds 
in his possession at that time, this would not justify a fudgment 
against beth partners, The judgment is therefore clearly errone- 
eus as te Johneon, and being erroneoue as te one it must be re- 
versed as to both. 

an exaziination of the record leads us to the conelusion 
that there ic no lisbility in the preceeding aa against Judwin. 
The question of hia liability depends upon the construction of a 
writing which appears in evidence as Garnishees’ Exhibit 1. This 
writing ie dated Mareh 11, 1952, states that it is “beteeen Kerris 
Finkel of the firet part, and Bernard Jadwin, as Trustee, of the 
second part,” and recites that Finkel is indebted om motes se- 
eured by a truet decd conveying the premises known as 3442-44 Vest 
Roosevelt Road, Chicago, in which Finkel hae « beneficial interest; 
that interest upon the indebtedness secured by the trust deed te 
the amount of $1500 is due and unpaid; that the bank designated in 
the trust deed is no longer doing business and payment cannet be 
made there; that Finkel constituted Bernard Jadwin trustee, for the 
benefit of the legal owners and holders of the bonds or neter; that 
Finkel has paid $100 fer their benefit toe apply on the interest; 
that Jadwin as trustee shall distribute thie and further sums 





Stee qkintenttad one to eindomm eas amie teat suas at — 
aut tp eoneteixe ott to Lainek on shou yet —E ma ‘benemna 
«xe ef? Ywh wos sua ob gerd Fh hasvetebaw of ga bee ,giintenitag 
as sedat ad Yat Yas al Soanme stant seeds tnd gama ode Te: 
“t6_ ae qiderentiag ese To wuqrane ads te vᷣiusu amy am 






LAs « £ 
hh dy CN 


teats bad hoqu bodsasosck wt of wet teaup aatitersoed dude « a 
‘to golvree odd ‘to omté ad? de bemomme qiinrenineg att read oxi use 





SUxegorg bad te galdtyae ereddeh sangeet ont bewe thew ony 
sd #1 2% .amlt of gubgnated molaeenweg aft ml , ode eSthory 
ghant mons hei fastivibal ae a9 sent tag one te om. Rees —— 
dic a dat. a Yiksevt tom Binow ald? ,omhs Jedd go me tege ane A 
ceaotte ylineto steteted? of fasaghol eft  .mnemting dios. * at 
on ad gous 32 ome of ap exoanqize gahod baa soon of an ae 


noteutonos edt of om whens —— 4 te py 











AS ey 


<mbwbal, Gaatans, ne, aatboonann oak ab seAAbhingh on a4, ome tat 





@ eter) 


4 to Agltowiduaes odd aoqe Bharead YiLidelt add to mokteoup ost 


atdt .t tidided ‘aeedelowed aa pooehive at ateegge soldw yabsiaw 





| —E noguted” at ¢h tans aptata 860k , if Kote toteb od pattem 


odd Yo .aesawtt an ,alwbal Aremned bas ,feqg task? ed Yo fod 

~90 astog so hetdebat al Ledatt dade aedioes Sas ",dteq Amone 

foeW Bd-RDDE ne stron soalawig et? gaiyernos —* xa bonse, 

jdaeretnt fale ttoard « sed foxat’ sakes wb ,ogeoidd ,aeh tLoveaoe J 

ot hand dautt end yd hexane aseahatdebal, aft aoe 

at botonyiaed Anat ad? sesh pblegaw haa oud af oath 20 2 Hanome, One 
ed foniae tmemyaq haw ceeninsd gated sogmeds om af Book, seus om 

edt tot ,ootaurd alwhal brented Sodus taco Loxat’ godt pened? oham 

tacit jaoas to abnod aud Yo Bwhiod hae exeawe kage act Xo tend” 

jdaezatad ond wo ylqqe of @Etaned thady, x02 —⸗ aed, kote 
nas woceiwt hae abd odudtzseth Limes eaters ¢ ae, abmbel, taste 



























: at 
‘ — se 
, ; at 
2 
— 


thereafter to be paid until aw sufficient sum should be depowrited 
to meet the antire inatallment of interest due. The agreement 
recites: 

"It is the purpose in making the aforesaid payment to said 
Bernard Jadwin, Trustee, to part absolutely with oll right to sald 
gum so paid, and it is agreed between the parties that the eaid 
Morris Finkel shell have no right to reocive the returm of any 
pertion of the seid sum ao palit, the parties ceneidering that the 
said sum oo paid, as well ae any further sums eo paid hereunder, 
is absolutely and irrevocably appropriated to the use and benefit 
of the legal holders and owners of interest coupene heretofore 
described, evidencing the instaiment of interest due upon the 1ith 
day of June, A. P. 1932, secured by the trust deed hereinbefore 
deseribed . af 
The instrument appears to have been duly signed and sealed, 

in resoonse to subpoena ienued at the request of plaintiffs, 
the ledger account of *. Jadwin as trustee wae produced and offered 
in evidence, It shows various payments made on account of interest 
and of reute from the buiiding and the balanee of tue acecunt of 
$670, 

Evidence was alse introduced which showe that plaintiff was 
the owner of one ef the bonds secured by the trust deed for the sum 
of $6500; that he reeeived a letter requesting him te sign an agree- 
ment for the extension of the date of payment of the bend, but that 
he refused te de so. It further aypears from the evidence that the 
judgment upon vehieh this garnishment proceeding is based was ob- 
tained by plaintiff on one of these bends. 

This bond is in evidence, It states upon ite face that it, 
with other bonds of the same issue, is eecured by wo trust deed, and 
that the rents of the premises are specifically conveyed and assigned 
ag security witheut preference of one bond over another, 

It is apparent therefore that plaintisf by this garnishment 
proceeding seeks to secure the rents ef the premises and appropriate 
the same to the satiafaction of his own debt to the exclusion of 
other bondholders, Plaintiff argues that thie trust agreement in 


reality amounts to the ereation of the relationship of prineipal and 


- 


ketiaccet ef Sivode age tenledTiwe « dja bling od oF te Stewsed? 
gnaxoetye sol enh fapuedad te taewiloiand otigas ed? Seemat 
hise o¢ te oesg Maen s'ta wld galdem al saogtug.ede ah Fi". 
bisa ag @emic is Adiw gietuloada gxeq 03 ,cotewsT .alwoat 244 
bine oft dad? selriwe one mewsed heouga of th doe ie ae 
ese to mivtet edt eviooet of Idydt on ovat iferle Leunt 

. eat tact paitebioges esifang add ,bleq ca mum bles ect — 
——— bieg of anew tedtawl yaa on Liew ae . Shag 68 mee 

$s tae 


f ae san a8t of Boteliqotaqe yideogvewsl bem ulotutoeds oh 
etetetetead eaoqucs ftevte¢at to avenwe bas exebied Lonel edd 8 


OeLi a8? noewt eubh eaz end Yo teontlade — aut te ea 
gt mses head eairat died “ iexnoes. 88 é ve 4* os ® Yah 


te faoe bea botyle qleb need wved oF atesgge — 

Mia to seeuset @42 fo benees eawogdae of exmeqaet Bh... co» 
how Tie haa badwherq aw gateuns es siwbab- —— 
feeretal ‘to saveone Ho eham siaomyaqg enoltevy evote 2h. ssonebive 
te tavoson aut to eenmiad ant baa yatbited od) sett agaet Yobas 
a — 

aay Vitediele sad! avededindse heewhortnt oata new aenebiek 

mun 9 262 beoh teats ot ys boteose ahaod ads to eno Ye zomve ot 
~90Tgs Ao agin oF mid yaktesunst tostel « Revisoet si bade 49086. t0 | 

sadt gud ,baod edt ‘to tnomesg ‘te odah ott TH aedeoedxe ant not tasm 
odt tad? sonehlve ed? mow exesggqe tadicy? $2.08 oho od hogy ton ot 
ado aay honed st gatbenoorg toemivlatey atts setde mnogu tapmqbat 
| ehnod- gatas ko one ge. maaatala yt bemhet 
92 take eet wdl noqu sedate 22 .panehivs at ak baed @2AE) poco. 
fon ,8e0b gavtt 2 yo hboswoee af ,eunead sme elt Bo abaed sosito, dake 
“‘hematonn hae hoyovans Yiineltioogs ote soxtamig odd Io wines, amd, tase s 

| a terltonw eve Baad. ene Io sasere tery tuedtiy Yinuees ee 

Sonoiehows ohdd yd Tritaiade sac? cvelertods tawteqqe. at es oo eet 
Gtatiqoigge hae oop duerq od? io ataos 962 stepee 98 siege galboopetg 
Ie aeinuiexs oi? of toh. ame ott to aetioatadsas ons of omen oslt 
al ¢omamexqe Jeutd whi iand seugue Vksaladd ewebLesthaod. resto 
bas Leqhoalty to ¢lslasotgalen os¢ to aolteere elf of atauomn, yo hiaot 


agent between the judgment debtors and Jadwin; that any trust in 
the fund was revocable by the debter trustor, and that the agrees 
ment ———— wore than a direction by Finkel that hie debt on 
the bende should be paid out of ow certain fund and therefore does 
not create an irrevocabie trust. Plaintiff cites a number ef 


cases, such as Douglass v, Martin, 105 lll. 26; Hamilton v. Dewner, 
152 Thl. 651; Hibe B, 2095 L11. 537, and 





28 Corpus Juries 123, with other authorities, which state the gen- 
Sreal rule that an agreement to pay out of « certain fund does not 
of iteelf constitute a trust. 

We think the cases upon which plaintiff relies are all din 
tinguiskable, in that here it appears that the funds were depoaited 
pureuant to a prier contract made in behalf of tne beneficiaries; 
namely, the trust deed made und delivered fer the purpose of se- 
euring the indebtedness evidenced by their bonds. See 28 Corpus 
Juria, see. 164, pe. 120-121. 

We hold therefore that a valid trust having been created 
in thie fund fer the benefit ef ali the bondholders, it was net 
subject to garnismment apon a judgment obtained on one of the 
bondse ty a single helder of one of them, The judgment in favor 
of plaintiff is therefore revered. 

REVERSED, 


ieSurely, P. J., and O'Conner, J., soncur, 


* 


ak daued “que Sad? palobal bas hz Paemybut end noewhed Faega 
— ott dud? use (Wokeot? tetdes off Yt — * pat eae 
ae t8eb als tad? fokall eo aoleoexks » ames ota — E FARR” 
aso — ‘han —*— — —— a * * — —— 





Re Gh WR bills eval i 

“ati rte ta Wolter Pissatate ddtié nig dene Was Salldd 7 
Mdtwoyeb orow whit vay saitd axesqae ¥4 ox0K ‘gait —* sia Ringe > 
Yew budo Donel wud To Tailbd af oben Foaxtiew tolre & as 
ae to s#equuy ed? tot devevEIed bow sham Seok seuet ————— 
augted 68 ee8 .eband choad x Hoomehive exoahesdebat oa? yabvvs 

lalla ee ee 
‘heteero uber yatvad devrt PiGiy » tad Oxotwread sro ow” 8% 
- fen one $2 etebLetbavd ant Cie To ¥) tony wae 40 pele anil 
‘glo lo Gite be beainsee taomytet & begs Ramune lice’ OF tootaua’ 














—E ——— fost ast A lo le 7 





‘oeotbend en th 


* » Y 


i DLE 9 SERA OR RPS Le —* POS, amc : 


J anialaiaaiaial a aed a * —V eke 


Page dee bee pees oS Salient en RNS cl ae a a sat tate 





1 hare BaG IO eee kate, eae ee —* tak 
tid. oraitiatea. tant oF ie 
SRW Oe ARES, gol pawenen 


ro pny takers wee ae ery aul 





—— er er + evn Pibdbaiet, .eeaitedband, sete 
ie 
a oe 
Large 'sar 8S Aeudiee wis ay Dap ahora, Qh tees iH 
e . —— 





36537 


HARKY GOBTZ, 
dppeliee, 


ve. 


LEO B, RAPP, 
Appeliant, 





270 TA. Bost 


lame] 


BAR, JUSTICE O'CORNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT, 


Hevember 13, 1931, plaintiff eaused judgment by confession 
to be entered on a written lease against defendant fer $140, $115 
of which was for rent for Kevember, 1930, and $25 for attorney's 
fees, Afterward the judgment wae opsned, defendant given leave te 
defend, amd he filed his affidavit of merits. At the clese of the 
evidence there was «a directed verdict in plaintiff's fever, Judg- 
ment was on the verdict, sand defendant appeals. 

The recerd discloses that defendant leased the third cpart- 
ment in a building in Chiesage for a peried from Hay 1, 1930, to April 
30, 1932, at a rental of $115 a month, payable in advance. In addi- 
tien to the apartwent the lessee ineluded a stall in a garage on the 
rear of the prasiees, By the terme of the Leame the landlerd agreed 
to clesn the e¢iling and do other werk on the aperteent. Defendant 
eceupiad the apartment and paid oli rent promptly, including Septem- 
ber, 1931. At the end of that month he vacated the prezises, claiming 
he had been avicted. Se offered avidenee tending te shew that the 
cenduet of plaintiff and hie family wae such thet he wae fereed to 
vaeate the apartment, 

Host of the offered evidence wae excluded; the ecurt, however, 
admitted evidence as to what tonk place on September 17, 1941, but 
held that thie evidenee was net sufficient, as a matter ef law, to 
Warrant defendant in breaching the lease, and accerdingly the jury 
was directed to find for plaintiff, 

Defendast, hie wife, «nd two daughters aged 16 and @1 respec~ 
tively, occupied the third apartment ef the threeeapartuent tui! ding; 
Plaintiff, the landlord, hie wife and child eceupied the second 





ieee NS 7 araoo YRAAN 
F * 4 ——— A BT 
| —— or | pci, es neoeted Fie 

: ‘i hg io : Si Ue Pe ie ee Age ware ¥ 

lb 8 dhdt eimeqmhnncgak” pair? 


* AW? UO BOTRIGG WKY CARING SOKEERhO SOUTEUL. oe 





| aaines raos xt troughs peoune “nibsabose ite ae seoron 
ante 00e8 9 Samba ted fanbeas —— wedi tee 8 0 erodine ws 


* al 
at ysaxotse x01 age bias ober tedapvolt * tro * ‘aew ‘foide to 
m | is “a Set ae E 





at eveot — — bourge caw taommbat, ans Rte v 
⸗ ite eeoke anid tA et ites te thvabh tte whet posit * * — 
abet, taver al titaatasa aut to tbsev hofoenth * sae otpas ee 
igi st lepans Sashas to * aes ‘ae caw’ ‘ 

— — ead bonwe & 4 amber Yad teat ‘wono fon te ‘ren sa a — 
Age od MCL J wen wort botiog 8 @ 192 oye at aathitad 9 ‘ab : J 
-thha al .eonevhe at siioyag seen * eee to Aesaes s cZ ! — 
on yo oystag a ok Linge & hebutoat —* ‘one tne ites’ ai Vals, 
i ll hreihaes ont oun £ vais te ed eat ‘ aontan7g one to x80 


Dryas whee we” 
anh sm tet — —— u⸗ a ato — ob baw ‘yal Lee ome 


“SH ay ere lk 
ames qe 8 goubuloas .<étquorg ta ihe diag bas darattsee aay oe. 


— —— 












paintals ,soeluetq edz betooay ost av nom dans * —* ont tA * 
Ry Ue en Se oes gee ue Re Pint Pa 
ond sant Rs as galpass eoush ive hoxotte on sbasotve need od 
oe haote? saw of Sas? dove caw yLiont afd baw Viis atele te —— 


— ony ssaoey 
oe, “ay eGR 
sWvered ,siwoe odd jbobuloxe eae  eonehive, — ont ‘te danik ye 


— 
fad ,f0@L , Vi toduetqed ae soulg Acod fade of ae ooaeh ive sedttabe, 

o? ,wol te telte« « aa ,tomiolYiwe fea saw sonshive else tadd bied 
YIHL os) _Lpaibtosee bas ,eeael ont gatdosetd ak tavbantoh santtew 

_  sRttdatatg tot bakt oF bosoesth ae 

| ~o9qaex £& bas 84 begs etedaguah ows haw Otley aha sPaabdae tee a 

tants: dud tnexttage-setds edd lo saomdteqge butde edd — * 


“baoves ans belquooe iiss ban ote eke vbretbant baad | 














and another tenant the first apartuwent. Defendant offered te shew 
that the building was so conetructed that erdinary conversaticna in 
one spartment could be heard in the ndjnecent apartment; that plaine 
tiff and hie wife often engaged in viclent and disorderly quarrels, 
useing profane, vile and indeeent language, most ef which was unaveid- 
ably overheard by defendant and hie family; that in Kovenber, 1930, 
there was some trouble with the electric wiring in the building and 
plaintiff accused defendant and his family of having been the cause 
of this trouble; “and at the sume time he became insulting and 
abusive is his recarke concerning this affiant ond hie family,* 
without any provocation; that December 24, 1950, while defendant 

amd Sis family were in their aparteent, plaintirr and his wife ene 
geged in an “unusually violest quarrel," whieh defendant and his 
fomily overheard; thet plaintiff called hie wile “vile, vulgar end 
obscene nases," and there was pounding on the doors of plaintiff's 
apartment occasioned by the alterestion between plaintiff and hie 
wife; that as a result ef this quarrel defendant's younger deughter 
beeane hysterical; that on January 5, 1931, plaintiff met defendant's 
wife in the basement of the building and teld her that defendant and 
his fanily had been making “all kinds of noise on Hew Year's eve* 

and it would have te step, and that *You can break your lease any 





time you feel like 1t;* that thereupon defendant's wife renonetrated, 
slammed the door and ieft. Defendant further offered to show that 
auring Gaturdaye and Sundaye of the winter of 1950-31, plaintiff 
failed to heat the apartuent as the lease provided, the tewperature 
sometines falling as low as 65 degrees. 

Substantially all the foregoing offers of preef were excluded 
upon objection of plaintiff, the court admitted evidence offered by 
defendent which, in substence, is that about the first part of Sep- 
tember, 1931, the lock on the service deovr en the side of the garage 
wae changed ao that defendant could net get in or out of the garage 
through that door; that on the evening of September 17, 1931, pisine 


mas ik ‘fo, ee 7 
Vehes 


wole of Some hia Jawbastet  .taadnege Jax odd fusned edtona frp 
mk pnoltaszevaeo yraalbio said hbevayiienes om sat — — 9 
eninlg dads ;fusuttaqs daveatha edt at biaed of AEyee tawatisga om 
,elorcaup Eleebiealds haw dustoty at Angeygae segte ative old fae vate 
 sbbovaay see dole Lo team ,ogeugoet faogebad bas olay ,ematorg gates 
WERE RXoaas val et dane ;ytiomt ehh fae Inehoe teh yt mensseove tte 
ies gubh tind ‘ott ab gaiiche abugoste odd Abie oktuont mon ‘nar erode 
eaten oat mood anlved to ef baat etd hae dasharteh Bboyone ‘Teatatate 
hme pal’ igend eomoed Od out? onan oad fa ban” jotduard 
4 eitwa’t ohd bie dasitia bit aat ars aes ‘edttaser ahd ot — 
“gagbae'toh ofise Obl 68 aedapest sadd — aid * —X 
«ty sitiv sia bas Vildalate tescdisen thedé ak ter 
eis him Sanh teh doldw *,decuaup taelele ‘gal —X 
‘ bas — — othe od teltas — fant * oy ihe 





















ted sigue sonmuoy ‘at dnwbas toh tetiau albdé Yo Frees & ae —TJ Pet be 
8! tacbne toh Secs Yibsndoig eet a yusssin’ tte ery “jfeoluedeyd emased 
ba aao dan iob todd ‘tent bhoe bate baal kag ‘out des — oa ab the 
it, ba Bie wae 








bobuloxe stew Yoote ‘to série galogetet oat tke —S— » bie 
qd beretto ssnepive bodtiube #109 ont — * akin so 





3 


tiff and his wife had another vielent quarrel in the @nd@ apartmest; 
that ‘efendant and hie family unavoidably heard pheintiff ea) hin 
wife vile and filthy names and use chacene lunguace toward her, 
The evidence further shows that about ten days thereafter defendant 
entered into a written lease for an apartment wita the owner of a 
builing located about ten feet from the apartment wuliding in ques- 
tion, and further, that about September 28, 1531, just after the 
new lease had been made, the new landilerd told defendant that in 
February, 1931, he bad talked with plaintiff and plaintiff atated 
at that time he would give the sew Landlerd $100 if he would take 
defendant out of plaintiff's fiat. This latter effer wae excluded. 
Defendant further testified that he wade no obieetion at any time te 
Plaintiff econserning the quarrels plaintifY and.hnia wife were having 
in their apartment, end that he made no cemplaint to plaintiff at 
any time about anything in cenneotion with any mattere of whien he 
now complaing, | 

Where a landiord commits acts of such character a amount te 
constructive eviction, or where he omite te de those things required 
ef nim by the leane whieh would warrant the tenant in vacating the 
preaises, but the tenant fails te vacate and paye rent thereafter, 
he waives the breach ef the lease by the lendierd. There eannet be 
eonstructive eviction without surrender of the premises, Kinn y. 
Sivdg, 246 Ili. App. 26; Seating vy. Springer, 146 111. 401; Vintalors 
N, 2appas, 310 Til. 115. Appiying tuis rule of law to the instant 
@age@, we ure of the opinion that even if we aesume that the eon- 
duct of the plaintiff iandlerd pricr te September 17, 1931, wae such 
ae would authorise the defendant in vacating the premises, yet he 
having failed to de se, those breaches were waived, It ia alee the 
law that where the conduct of the landlord is such that the tenant 
would be warranted in vacating, the tenant le net shliged to vacate 


at once but ie entities te a reasonable time after such breach; and 


what is a reasonable time is generally a question of faet. Kinn wy, 


se ae oe 


 Mekasniy 7 hed sti OSE (a8 
ααν Set Ae: Sete gale weed fore oe 


P Aid 

Ge hae g 
4 i 
ees | * 


are Anta See eat wb Ze⸗ikunp see Taht Tediene Ban SUEY o Et bad run, 
ate {lao Titenedy does ekdedtoveay Yfteet sin baw tactino teh sally 
< : tee Seow wet ogeagaet Seeeeds wel baw eemed eorty bee ofty othe 
tapdae'ted wetaeteds eyeh nad toda sade weer see sanstive ex? 
. @ De Teaws ef? <tiw faeeetege ae TAT Genet eteiew & odal bexedap” 
soup af gabled dasedtone ant aot gent nex juodw beteowt paEreie 
grt xovta gent (Akl (88 weteeeges tuoda tea rome? fea” Rey 
(oh: dem? Pemba tn bled Meothast wets ont /odew Webe Kae saab WOH! 
betage Vikidlale dae Ti teaiate Atle bodied pod ad (LOCL (yetaet” 
ded Sivow 94 T2 0018 Dio Lhmul wen'ead “s¥ty filvow et! bind oie Pa” 

— naw aeTtewided aber’ frutt xu ⸗ atota te fle! abit” 


(ed omhe ede £6 nOttabl de om haw sa beds bo Pigeons RedeEeT 








gutrod swaw oti sid. pnd Tiwalel@ efeetwup aes 9 Ly 
te Vitdatale ef atadgeon om what od 569 aa” (damslbeben Wedd HE 
ot sick To minsdast yas dsiw Rettoeiced ae jakde gah ie ids iv io 
.Higuiete noeeeae wel enact te OEE a Ue eu lat⸗ rs 

of fave en TdoatsHe dove “to ofoe ws banda iio tina's’ etoue “ihe 
huetepet ayriis ote! of of @dtme na onsite ve (tekactes evi — 
———— ‘te ate 

.Ts3 wows dase oyaq dee bdeinny ot atte widiind wie! due je a ae 

_ 9S Sonne rast  .brathaat edt ys exsind “welt ee owen ist view otf 
> Sa ceostue te edt To tohusttie thotiie aeiéotye a — *X tas 

. tabu OO dak cot Oe ened 












wnow odd tat? voiewne we TE 9% ten aeeere wr Hal — — 
“dowe aw (EOL .VE xodestees of roe beprenet” ntratate vite se se 
vied toy qeeakuey oi galdeony mh: dem bab tet wie wat rer ow om 
—* ———— oF sake glib ( 
tage t edd tact tows et brome edt toxbinos ot vr ie 
oteney od boyd lve tow ef sams One —E be pare | 
baw, yeoqets pee toss omit elteaoraiy a “ot Roth sto pane 
Ce a nr ee a ee 












4 


Slyde, suora, and cases there clted; Giddings v, Wilijame, 336 111, 
482. 

The question for decision then is, Was the eonduct on the 
part of the landlord in changing the look on the door to the side 
entrance of the garage ond the quarrel of September 17th, such ae 
would amount in iow te a conetructive eviction, defendant having 
paid ne rent after Septexber 17th, and having vacated the apartment? 
We think the answer muet be in the negative, eepecially when it ie 
considered that defendant at no time made any complaint te plaintiff 
ef the latter's conduet. To constitute an eviction under the law, 
there must be something of a grave and permenent character done by 
the landlord clearly indicating an intention (expreae or implied) 
of the landlord to deprive the tenant ef lenger beneficial enjoyment 
of the prenises. 


Tl1. 196; Givbons vy. Seefeld, 209 111. 455; 
Ili. 75. While it io generally a question of faust whether the acts 








or omissions of the lendlerd would ameunt to constructive eviction, 
yet when al] reaeomable minds would reaeh the conclusion that sueh 
acte or omiseions were not of a grave or permanent cheracter, then 
the question is one of law for the court. 7 

In the inetent case, we are of the opinion that the conduct 
‘of the landlord during the mont: of September, assuming an we must 
on this reeor4, that the offers of proof made by defendant were true, 
was not of such @ grave and permanent character as would amount to a 
Glear indication of intention on the part of the landlord te deorive 
the tenant of the enjoyment ef the premises, and therefore did net 


constitute an eviction. 
The judgment of the Municipal court of Chisage is affirmed, 


JURGHERT AYP IRMED, 
MeSurely, F. J., amd Katehett, J., coneour. 


pai 


Ait OES .9u2i St) ot eau boty thedie ated asa bee. stn 
nat ao toubaee oc? an a seas wolsiors, * sition om co we 
obi 9a? 92 toch e497 ag Agok 08 Eoigande a2 huekhaal e673 Ye Jtaq 
ea sous HTL sodemseed Io Iertans ot fas eqeteg edt Le samestne 
Qaivad taxhav ted ,aelleive evisewienss a ot tel ah taseme bigow 
Tiamtgequ ec hedwony gatvad how , Sav tadaatqot teen ¢aes on Shag 
ak $k uedv _Lintongas .evitegen ast ut od Soim tomene aid kabdt 8 
Viltalela of talatqaoo yan sham emis om 46 dambae tab tad? oredlanse 
, .Wat od? tebaw aeldoive ae @ducigaaeg ef .dosbans a' terial erty ‘te 
va emed Tetootade Imneeneg hae ovata « Ye gtikditome << peas 000th — 
_ (beitewt 20 aeouqus) antiantak an gaitanhaat —— bro thant oad) 
—8 isietioaed xognes te tnemst ons ovixach ot anashons ott ~ Bi 
— Sawa veal’ aes Tr CR .s i. 2 — 
ates eu? xedtecdw toet to aeiiseup a 4 8 ————— 
,tolinavs evigentacce of Imoma tine Srelkned eat Yo enolan two ™ 
 Maue tes moinaiaace st Senet bisew aonta eitameanet fle sote soy 
mods ,eeteatads fanagerte, to arety & Xe Jon eter saclen tae 79 atom 
3 duos oft coh wed Re. pae at nabeenien aA: ‘ 
— ead an⸗ —— odd to ote ow ,onne dootont eft al... 4) ‘a 
⸗aum OF Os Zaiminss ,todaasqee to ddaom wef padrwh Srothant ast Re 
at, eraw saobas toh Gf cham Toate Ip ametie ant tase sheooes ata aq 
& ot Sasso bhuow a2 telostatio taeaeonog bas ovata a save To so. ea 
— orte go of brekhast edt Yo tisg ad? a soltastat Yo molsanthal tanto 
2 
* 














fom 52d etatoresis baa ,oenlanrg of ‘to Saamyolas eff Xo sanans ect 


-Reisolve sa osutitanea, 
beams ad aa bey to —— tagiodaun aa te sasmybut oat wi — 

. * “get * 
LAE HA raxadaui —* 
— Tis we’ 

: stwomoe oh ——— bas at * orton 
| eee — ee tM LE WE Bacal 





36575 





HANCY WASSNAN, ) ee | | a an 
Appellee, f 2 {j— 
LAW FROM SUPERIOR COURT ; 
a. F P 

⸗ ‘OF COOK COUNTY, \ 

GAICAGO TITLE & TAUST COMPARY 

et al. 

EDP ABD Ae BILLAK, 2 yay a ~ NK a) ¢ mi 
sa aaecanaaee 2¢01.A. 620 


BA, JUSTICE O'CORAOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR VOUKT, 


By thie appeal the defendant, Bdward A. Milier, seeks to 
reverse a decree entered in a forecleasure case. 

Seceuber 7, 1951, complainant flied her bill to forselese a 
trust desd dated September 24, 1927, given to aseure the payment ef 
$6,060 represented by three notes, two ef $500 aaca, due three and 
four yeare after date, and one for $65,006 due five years after date, 
Complainant dlieged that she wae the orner of the $5,000 note and 
coupons, "ail ef the rest of the prineipal and interest notes heving 
been duly paid, cancelied, or the lien theree? otherwise extinguished. 
The unknown owners ané4 holders of unpaid netes secured by the trust 
deed were made partien defendant. There were a number of defendante 
but the only one whe entered an appearance wae #1liier; he filed a 
a@emurrer on acecunt of the ineonsistency in the aliegations of the 
bili in making unknown oenere parties 4efendant whee it bad been ale 
leged that the notes tad been paid, or tne lien thereef otherwiee 
extinguished. The demurrer was sustained and defendant, by leave 
of court, filed an mended bill eliminating this inecusistency, and 
the unknown ownere of the notes were dropped as ¢efendante. Hiller 
anewere, the amended bill and denied that all the rest of the 
principal and interest notes had been paid and cancelled, but averred 
that on June 10, 1930, the time of payment of the twe principal 
notes of $500 each had been extended te September 24, 1952. He 
admitted that he owned the fee of the preperty on which the trust 


ae Wire er Aes 
— Eram 2000 w 





xus uc ranar a hot ey 


bee wee ve 
J RG. Stas 


ded AT ors” 7 * — — 


he ae reget 





ia 000 dl * uoꝛauio ‘ae caARV Li —E iosteut’ aa 


; at CURR He cae 

ed wdobn (RELL 4 Weeds (enbee TED Gad Genqged ARM). ooh : 
wad % /(9as0 ereseldeve? # a2 tevetae oeanehis 4 18% rot 
(g sweteoret oF Litd wad beds sanmkodemad £808 4% ote eoa: tae 
(Ro nang od ruses OF teVEy TRUE Re KEdEeteOe He sah hens fale 
Se rt: ei ganas: GONE Ye eee (ante estate et Ba gaesonae wc, OE 
wetaboweate aaeoy ert? bak 000,58 BOT ene Boe poead wegte eam chet 

hae 929 OOOOH acid Yo ReawO eslt Aad wee dou AewOLIN dnimite take 
| Ghia aston feered0! Row dngivalte sb te s90% oid Yo ts” jenagioe 
————— WwothAs ad auin TH ~haLieaane anemia 
























8 nah nu tee to aedsum ao stew ered? . polar settee ; ts . ; 
7.) mente ast pte <b one seca va bessims oot ono sh ae 









2 giana tan tnenaneant: — aitts 
(younPatewonat aldd jutdadal te: EERE Bobo aus DOREY 0 10 to 
—X — Saat ON SE a —X 













— dud —2B—— —— bm bieg need had a — rey 
“Enqlonixg owe euit to daomese to —* nen * 

HX BCL bs to den — — ‘od * ait whe oh 
dewred 9st daddy ne Yrreqetg Bat Yo wot only ene as 


: 


| 
j 
t 
uy 
hf 


i 


4eed wan being forecloved; thet a meehenic's lien had been fere- 
Slowed on the property, a sheriff's deed iseued, and a redemption 
made from the deeree entered in the mechanic's lien case, and the 
property later conveyed to him; that in the meehanie's Lien sult 
the trustee of the trust deed, ae well as the owners of the notes, 
were made defendants, and later the unknown owners ef the notes 
were defaulted and a deeree of foreclosure TEESE, it wae 
found in the decree that the lien in the meehanio'g/ease was su- 
perier te that of the trust deed or nete holders in the inetant 
case; that aftervard there was a master's cale but no redemptien 
head been made; that the deeree was in fuli feree and effeet; and 
denied that the trust dead ecougnh’ to be foreciosed was a lien en 
the property. 

Afterward, by leave of court, compisinsnt amended her 
amended 6112, alleging that Biller was the owner and holder of a 
trust deed which wee a secend lien om the premises, and that sinee 
he became thw ooner ef the fee, the lien of the second trust deed 
wae extinguished, Miller answered the amendment by admitting that 
he was the owner and holder of the notes seeured by the second trust 
deed but denied that the lien wae extinguished because of hie gwner- 
snip ef the fee. Keplicstion was filed and afterward the cause 
Was referred to a master wie took the proefs and made up his ree 
port. He recommended a decree of foreclosure in acoerdance with 
the prayer of the bill. Objections to the report were overruled 
end afterward the Chanceller overruled @xeeptiong, entered a deoree, 
ant this appeal followed, 

The record diecionses that on September 24, 1927, the owners 
of the premises, the Applings, borrowed $6000 to pay for eresting 
@ building on the premises and made the three premiesery notes 
hereinabove mentioned, Afterward there was o mechanic's Lien 


foreclosure in the Superier ceurt and a judgment was entered in the 


— — — — 


— ——— — —— —— — 


—ñ— * 


ee ee ee a — — 


—— 





an ood bad att stodnadesm a tadd toovotoore? aaiked ov book 
toliguhet a San , heuer fond gt redzesis * — anit a0 — 
le hee poeme aot we shentionn ef? wt poxoeae ooxped an? sor, aha 
ime meii a’ okunsigan oad wi tans paki of hoya vaae sedat essere 
qseton eng te stemee sedate ifow ae ,heoh saund oat * nosound ont 
/ gubas oat ‘to ateawe avacins aff totel ban , efit’ 0 ten sham exe" 
eee 23 ron jhetndom otunelonte? Yo aetesh 4 hae pertuaten | ee 
mae ae ————— ons at mall ond said ie Sob oad , 











Me sg SH ——— 


bas zaos ars haw aeran Lint ai sen eotgeb adt sand ——— haat 

fe 4 saw bowetoere? ad of, titywoe, baad Seuss ae fost, * 

— ae ae oe . 

aes —R tomate canoe ose to vans — —D —— 

—J Yo twhfed baa toma adi aaw RELL bess nat go ie os di — 

, wae a⸗⸗ bs toe daw ag ous ae ar⸗⸗ haetea & Baw winds Boab * 

Bebb doors bmeset on) Ye nodt aad ,oe't ‘at Te where welt onpeed 
that yatttdnba yx tormdunne od DOKMHNA TOLEL shosadanahene | 

tems. Baeses wnt ys batuene andan ony te. etited hag tee 7 : Pe 7 ; 

wtstwe tit te aausoed Sedwhugalixe aaw medi eat gaat * tis, boon 

ennno oni (ptaenedte has hoLst naw moitavktgeh 99? ** * 

A qu shes bas stoory, oat soot *— teen) 6 of bares? 


moines. on. tnt alae, Sanhnn 6 sem poet. email —23 — 

























—— sie Ni 


aren%e ons sree, oe —— ot) tags nevosenth — * — 
at tooun Tol YeqeF O00RE bowetred ,egalions oz —— ‘ 
ao⸗ oa YICANkuosG Ooms est, — bats “apa tone, ans ade 
MOLL at etaasiqna a enw oTeds pawwred ts — * rods : * Tom 









Bunicipal court which was « liem on the property, and it seams te 
be agreed that on June 10, 19K), the legal title ta the premises 
was in fr. and Mere, MeCormick. The notes ant trast deed involved 
were then owned by the Capital ‘tate Gavings Bank, and the def ondeat 
Miller was the owner ef a eecend sertgage on the premises. Om that 
date an agreement wae cutered inte between the three parties where- 
by the time of payment of the tre $560 netes wae extended te Sep. 
tember 24, 1932. The agreement reeited the Judgment in the Munie 
Gipal court and the mechanic's lien decree, as above mentioned, 
and it was mutually agreed that in consideretio: of extending the 
time of peyment ef the twa 9600 notes the 4eerce in the meckhanie's 
ifen ease would be opened up ant ali parties, so far as it affected 
the trust deed being foreslezed in thie casée and the notes secured 
by the eame, should be digalvead out of that case; and that the 
lien of the trust deed teing foreclosed in the instant ease sneulad 
be a firet ond pricr lien on the premises. Afterward erders were 
@atere’ in the eachanie's lien suit in aecordanue with the written 
agreement, 

Tae evidence further shere that the bank aold the $5500 note 
and truat deed te the complainant ia Geteber or dovembsr, 1936; that 
the fee of the preuiess was tranaferred te the defendant Milier 
Augast 21, 1931, anéd thereafter, on bovenber 15, 1931, defendant 
Biller paid to the receiver of the Gapiteal State Bank 3760 fer the 
two $506 notes which the receiver delivered te him togetser vith 
the interest esupons. It further appears that on July 7, 183i, 
Miller, whe owned the $2060 installment mote secured by the second 
trust éee4 on the presises, filed bis bil) te foreciose that trust 
deed in the Superior sourt ef Cock county, vherein he adwaitted that 
the ifen of the trust deed involved in the instant case wae & gu} 
perior lien, 

On the hearing before the master Biller testified te the 


gt Stbod 22 hae eiteqote HAH no mkt a an dott —E See Amit 
won tn xq vett av oft22 fuged ade ,ouet, os" ona a ‘and —8 * 
aertorat bénh sauxs bas sede ot —ERE et bao ait ak naw 
teaiae'ted ead Ene’ dank age wae agate tetiqad sad cd benwo watt now 
sasit ao seed haotg ead ae eyeue tea haooee a te at8awe act oo ta) hie 
“ote sii — would out ——— wes — ea — 


















‘ont gakdastxe ‘te saktwtebis aes ar ‘aaa ‘sie ' * Toe | 
e"otessiven wit ett seTeeh exis abt * oe eas cd 6 bate — be 


: betagse enten est ban wena aids al —*— wis —* ys: : 
ee todd hee nea tadt Ye Wwe bowsloath of boos — 

————— aad wh hetatewxet gatot boob § pase 

erow etebte browses ‘,weehaong a8? no welt mobs nq bis 

mete ew eae ria Haiti ‘at hue wat * — D — — 


sitar Go0es bits bhoe anid’ wid dint awaits ere mi We ee 
i tae Tee ,wdeevel te eedeted ak taonda temed ‘ete a me — baa 
‘ROSL2M tonbew'teh OAD OF hotretanatd aow Boekawng’sMt te oot ia | 
“ snabeeiob LEE (EL tedaavelt ao jweg taiebM Bien sete 8 sega 
odd uot GUNG aa ators — exis bad + aviator vad Whit 80. a3 | 













| Aues 9 at we att atnagad wat act —— quSo SeHIeTs 
— oat? ud betwose ston, tavaldagent OIOTS 7 — * * 
towed sant enetowrst of Lid wai beth sbonkan 
| tad hede tathe wa alesodw ,¢eswov 400d 6 duzos rohregitt dd? at bow 
| ste a a8 ee samddid Wild At —— towne ae te a 


St ‘ eae Ay 





effect that he had bougkt the two $500 notes from the reeeiver of 
the bank Tor one of Bie cliente. it furtser appears from tae evie 
dence that at the time Alller reeeived the netes from the receiver 
they were delivered to nia uneameelied, Unere is other evidence in 
the reserd but ve think it unnecessary to Fafer te it here, 

Tae master found that the lien of the tro §500 netes beenne 
extinguished by reason of the fact that Milier, whe beught them from 
the bank, wae the owner of the fee. When the cause was pending be- 
fore the Changellor en exceptions to the waater's report, leave was 
given to complsinant te file her secena asended bili ef complaint 
te conform with the proefs tuxan before tue usster., The second 
wiended iil was filed Oeteber 15, 19S, Gefendant Miller waved te 
Strike it from tue files, the soiion was everruled and eu Ceteber 
31, 1953, the deeree ef foreclosure apponied from was entered, 

Althougs the defendant, in his answer, set up as hie defense 
thet the Lies ef compleinent's trust deed was extinguished by the 
mechanic's lien preeeeding, yet in Lie firet brief filed in this 
éourt Ko such contention is made, sand it may therefore be considered 
as having been waived. ut in any event, there is se merit in the 
eoptention because the recerd discloses that after the deeree was 
entered in the mechanie's lien case, the owner of the $5600 note in 
fereclosure filed o petition tm that case, Aad the order entered 
vacating the decree ae to the ewner of that note, filed her anewer, 
ané afterward, on June 1¢, 1950, the written agreesent we have above 
discussed was entered inte, greviding that the mechanie's lien pro- 
seeding be diewiese4 as te the omer of the $5000 aote and trust 
Geed. thie was secerdingly dome. Defendant having been a party 
te that agreesent ond having there agreed that the trust deed here 
involved was « first Liem om the premises, is now estepped te sone 
tend that the trust deed was not a lien on tne premises in question. 

A further argwaent is made that the deoree in erroneous and 








ohve 06% monk sunsene sack na't J ‘soda0 tke ale te bad ‘tot 2 rt 
tovivoes watt aext seten esis hevieos™ J ball ‘Ya tae 








ered 24 of thet of yaecososany #2 aalild we dha —— i 

onan. soton oes neg nats te voki weit fads howe tedenut ont” 
soe mat ssiywod ote — ddd dont ot Yo sonane wf hove ba 4 * res 
wed galbaeg ace saan act nod? — ait 16 aeave eit — —* fe 
saw ovaed ,dtognt a! tedsan ‘alt ad aueiigoon’ ae ⸗ edt Axoꝛ 
sacetgaye te Litd bebneus Aaooen ved of11 0) Jankladqend od marke 
— beonee ant oto dma esd euc'tod foind whacuq ail sits mioaeb 3 
93 devou aoiitid duadadied R8O £4 tadedod best aaw take babies 
— we be boluixevs eee aoisou oad OOkET CS edt Ht ow inse 
bontae sew wort ne kana susesive tet ‘te ooneth ont wey * é 
—8 eid ,,,—————— — —— — —— — — exit” iyworia Za 























ede et pede Luvgabexe aew hawk seuss 8 Yanaia tetas ‘te woe ote sa 


2 


— gexkt ett ab oy ,aalbeoowdy wwe Be at obs 





henedtanes ed exctereds yaw #2 bao .wbom at aalsmeenen ewe ‘oi fete 


ads ak three on et ovens as vo yas oh aul beview goad antved a⸗ 
saw evtesh od 10lte tads soaoloorh bivee% OM gaugved sot tnetaes , 
Gt gee 00084 vst to temwo off ,onae sokt er etandsem bag a bortan 
_ Bettas tobae oss ben ,owno sad? nd woddlieg a beLts wiweditor 
ao woa⸗ —2* peti 9800 Sai? To weave ods oF ba ooseod HAP anttat 
oveda oad ow guomeetgs aodd ine ed — Ot wadt na! baer i ) 
— ods a! odavdoom ot teat gaibivorg ,olnk kotetne exw Senvage tb 
-— Pawtd baw ode 0008) oid Yo tome vale oF aa ——— —* 
aims ‘need yaivad dusdatet enon Yigniéton a a 
“sued boos teu? 0f9 todd bowrys sini jabs diet i 
‘aon ed bogeotee vou at 200 dum xg ous a asit sauit stat — 
ao Ls aeup ai ans Low tq ome ao mie a ten sav ‘bead “peared * ub e 
bas anooaotie ui sexeeh odd Saude sham dh sabmigte sOaixm A ee hios ed 


























should be reversed because the evidence shows that Miller's ciient 
owned the two $500 notes and was not made a party defendant. We 
think this eontantion is equaily without merit, The first intima 
tion that any one other than Milier claimed to own these notes was 
when defendant was testifying in hie own behalf. The bill alleged 
that these two notes had been paid or the lien on them hud been 
otherwise extinguished. The anewer denied that they had been paid, 
but there was mo denial that the Lien of thew had been extinguished, 
Horeever, thea master was warranted in disbelieving the testimeny of 
defendant te the effect that Ae had bought the motes for his elient, 
for in view of the faet that defendant Miller at the time wae gone 
tending that the trast deed was no longer a iien on the premises, 
it would be hignly improveble that he could obtain «a client who 
Would pay $700 for the notes, But since the defendant owned the 
fee it was perfectly legical fer aim te buy these two notes for 
$700 and relieve the lien on the preaises to that extent, 

A number of technical polntse are aade by the defendant, « 
among them, that the court pormitted the second amended bil te be 
filed but 4i4 not rule ¢defendant to sanawer, It ie apparent there 
Was nothing te anewer, the amendment to the blil baing slaply te 
make it conform to the proofs made. So complisuint was made when the 
order wae entered that defendant bad not been given a chance te 
anaver; nor is any suggestion eade ae te anything he wight have in 
the way ef an answer that would sffeet the serite ef the ease. The 
fact that the replication wes net withdrawn before the smended bil) 


was filed ies merely « fermal and fsmaterinl objection. A court of 


review will generally net reverse a judgwent or decree ehere aubetan- 
tial justice hae been dene and where the only purpeee of reverses] 
weuld be to permit the parties to make a more perfect record, 


RISES Te Barbers S88 ill. 336. 
¢ decree of the Superior eourt of Cock county is affirmed, 
AFFIEMED, 


HeGurely, ®. J., and Matehett, 7., soneur. 


tre kig owe Leh Sand? eworie aouehive ot eeumond heateven of bweste i 
OF .daaba les ytee @ Ohm Pom naw Beis neton GOES ows walt hae 
~imkoak souk? 6 even fuoidlw gldewpe vt holtadinee wade Makes 
kee Endgn Wendt owe CF hocdnte eI dade retro wmo Yen taRt ‘aoky i 

“hegelte LL eMt J Rhaded wey td wk guciioenes ‘aaw dete ames 
eed per wort oo woh a2 to btdy toed bad eoted ont ened? ‘sadd 
jbhag aved Bek Yds Soul? bolweh “cowdrin ot? ‘shade bergouttne waivendse 
bein dugel tem amed had weds Ye noks odd taitt Lekawd od ea one * 
to yNoultesd ody yubvolindelb al hetnevtes ee dotaka ca r 

mile wie <ot exon wih tigwed bad wat Gaeld ageTIn ont ‘OF daibaw inl 
atta aise ome of Se RULER Sambi ToD taut? geet ont we wate ite 
woniewrg a? oo asst a wegind om sew doeh Ferd oath tadd yakbned 
ecw Jumhke « mindde bivoo wil sae tasuoraca — D tit ot | tier’ 
Oud henwe taahue en oud ohute dull endod ed tet GE ye NEW 
TeX Sedu OWT COOK Yud of AIM Yet Leotgot yitreetwe saw Th —— 
Sinden Suit, OF ade knite one Bo wort nut svt’ ba oore 























wg emheb ed 02 Ye oben wun whatey Keeton Ve ete A isnt 


od of KL10 taba baowte was hortiomG ores ant todd” pee ion” 
Weeds Maorkege 6295 $neweRe Oo Faahe'ten efit HoH pik det — Ma 
(Ot yhowle yadvd Libd heig 6d SHombmeime watt — —— 
“oils made oben wav Satekaoe oh obi eRoene ost of mtetaes 9a" bit eo : 
ed eaneds 0 Heviy sed tom bak suahne ton saat hotedne Cow Hehe 
sh. spats tihn'en gatsngin.cr-en lillies | 
Od \auat ant Yo nehinw ond so0'Tte Blwow sand rowand Re to wre” 
(«EEN behsome ade owed tmbArw doa ee antowdbtedd oat ath teat 


oe tiwas A .messeatde Loltesemml bie Keotdt « YLetom ab badd 


enatedun ated setoeb to taemmbul a eatsees gen “itenemey Abe w 
— ts snecewg Vino edd otode hoe ond avad et 
ebteges foo tte atom.» elem of. ge rye og ppt dine Angel 


— E at ytsues dood ‘te Sawon tedxoque asd to vetes eer aaa ade 



























CeWALTUA 
Bi: ae longo AR amat Await’ a eee — 
0808 — sHteaotaa bow —— * ie 
ty Woy alk wie! i 
SP ae eee oc ee ee 44 gi ee — — ae — 


36693 


PROPLE OF THE STATS OF ILLINOIS 

@x r@l, OSCAR NHLGON, as Auditor 
of Public Accounts of the State 

of Illinois, 





Complainanta, 
VB. 


WEST HIGHLAND OTATR BARE, a 
Cersoration, 
Defendant. 


In the Matter of the intervening 

Petition of ELIZABETH DOYLE, 
Appellee, APPEAL FROCK SUPERIOR 

ve. 


IRVIN Tf, GILHUTH, Receiver of Yeat 
Highland State Bank, a Corperation, 
Appell mab. 


QCOQURT OF COOK COURTY, 


— — —— —— — mgt a ti” — — 


* 


ER, JUSTICE O'COREOGR DELIVARED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


By this appeal Irwin tT. Gilruth, recelver of the Fest 
Highland State Bank, a corporation, seeks to reverse an order or 
deeree entered by the Superior court of Cook seunty alicwing the 
Glaim of Klisabeth Doyle in the sum of 31000 as « preferred claim 
eonditionally. 

The evidence offered by tre claimant, Hligateth Deyle, is 
te the effect - and the order of the court finds - that on or 
about Hay 26, 1931, she went to the West Highland State Bank i” 
Chicago, in which benk she had a savings account snd pass book 
number 13965. fhia savings acecunt was opened January 6, 1951, 
and at the time in question there was $265 in the account. dn 


May 26, 1931, claimant appeared at the bank and spoke to one of the 
Savings tellers, telling him she wanted a cashier'e check for $940, 


whies she desired to use fer rent, and that she wanted te desosit 
$66 in her savings account; she wae given the cheek for $940 and 


270 1.4. 626 


L 


deposited the $60 as shown in hor book number 13965; ehe had another 


$1000 check with her that she wanted to leave at the bank in trust 


because she intended to use it in a week or two to start in the 


ae 
J C? eee Gea ace Sp Bawa: 
‘exeuaatt 1 RSATE at * ——— 
woribaa es n RAVSO -. fod me 
stats ont to ate otidu® to 
— ———— 


— — canod 


Salt ee 
ee. 
a1 tee * eae eR ge 
2 Riad taza a JKDTE 
tapas t9o, 


J— Pe a ae 
antaorsodal por tw —2* poh “a 
' RAVOC BYERASSGA Re mote ks 


ca? » ROR 





moves ug —— 
.¥raveo A000 Wo TAuO9 ( va, oe * 
— bane es 

sane % — ———— * “arent 

vaaae osage a, 


itt iy Ag I OTS” at — 


— bade "gat iva 


x 


* 
ie 


RVD aH — aat axgo or Cd onaoeio wien * 


————— — wel 
—— & vtaad 09666 bratty hh 
ésid gate tte etaos food to Pves tobteyet ond YS becedo sote0d — 

diets boristetg & aw OGLE Ye sum writ at ee 
sy) donot Lhaow 


at \ahyod Htedarli® ,Sasulels adioyw feeeTio senabive eM joo gar 
“ye de gad? « ehakt trem of te vetoes oat baw «+ Coe The estd ob 
Ab gawd eesd Healayth sew nad ef taow ode .L6eL oe ven tuoda 
dood wanq Sub Pawoven eyrtves » het em aaad debdw ok jopmetdd 
{002 (9 Yrawnel beabye eaw tumevew sytiven watt 0008. tedaue 
Oo gO Lemuodne oeo Ht CONG eae oedd wedteeup i embs ede tn a 
aa — of — bas a i ve —* — “ 





restaurant business, for which she had purchased chairs, tables, 
eta., and would need the money to pay for them, The telier ree 
plied that it would be all right and he then epened another saving 
account, giving her a book number 14432 in which the 91000 was 
meted. hie is the only item shown in the book. The bank was 
clesed on June }, i%31, by the auditor of public secounts and 
later the reeeiver was apoointed. The claimant sought te have the 
$1000 last mentioned allowed as a preferred claim, The court en- 
tered an order allowing it ae a preferred elaim conditionsily. 
The order provided that the $1060 "is a ciaim entitled te prefer- 
enee and priority of payment by said Irwin t. Gilruth as reeeiver 
for said defendant bank, provided thas /ine distribution of the as- 
sets of said bank it is determined that there were in the posecscion 
or said defendant bank at tne time ef the closing thereor, and that 
there came into the hands of said receiver acuong the assets of 
said defendant bank certain assets subject to the claim of gen- 
eral erediters, aid that the moneys of said petitioner are a part 
of said assets and siowld be paid taerefrom, «**,* 

in thie court the receiver alone has filed wa brief, the 
Claimant, Zlizabeth Voyle, not apsearing; and the argument ie 
made that the $1600 was not held in trust by the bank but vasa the 
ordinary savings account. ‘There is ne explanation, however, ae 
to why the second savings account wae opened by the claimant, if 
it was the crdinary eavings eecount, why wae not the money placed 
in the account Pa, — carried at the bank for several months 
and noted in her book number 139657 There is no explanation of 
this in the receiver's brief, These facts tend strongly te suppert 
Claimant's contention, but we are unable to pass upon the merite 
of this claim for the reasons stated in an opinion we are this 


day filing in number 56561, People ex rel. Uscar Neleon, Auditor 
of Public Accounts, y. the Stony Island State Sayings Bank, where 


2 


Cpe ae 
ee idad an lacio ꝝov aus tay based ods sodas cot sGamsrt aad aenus teoꝛ 


ont tolled at? ami? cet yag of oto wid, bene binow baw, +098 

@aivas tedions henego wend pei bow diya fha os bkuow 2 duit: Doki 

saw COORG odd dobme wh RBDES —— dood « nod yal vig —RX 

aw ines edt .tood ene ah aroriy mosh xine edd ek etsy _ photos 

bam efavoses of ideq te aod i hwe edt “ HEU * peut ey —*** 

— even ef n faemiala ont bedakorgs: asw wevisoe's ond r9ted 

ang dase otf .wlade hextetety a as bevolle bois shit ven aa 

m stidemtots Lies atais horus te wg @ on tt antwo tte sebte ae Reteg 

“te'toxq of beLéitue miale # al* eoost any gnats bebivorg vente, — 

Zi wovieset ea Adare $18 4 — atin’ “ee fun aveg te ehiveny baa soe 
vad “sa aid 19 agtsud neath ead aie hobivexc sand éiabay tok bise x0 





“nataasesog aig a onee vrs· east bomberee toh ak wa Read biaa te ston a 


taut baw veore dt yateolo edt to wats mid Se ned dnabee'toh phew we 
1e afouae ond guvse teviewst bise to shand ed? oak geome ores? 
eteg te mink oct of tovtdue. ngener atadiss. dnd tonbuo'teb bine 


se9q 2 Ht Mesoksidey bine te eyonvm BAP taut baw exadhsore Law 


tone ,nowtetedd biag of Mace pew e2eeee Diet! to 

eat ,teiid @ heii? sat eagle wevieoss es Gtmoe eid aby 
ah Momgte 83 base jg_ritasqge som ,eLyal diedeet sh | fanmtals 
a8d Baw Sud Mawd one yd Yeutd at Miko Poa eaw OWOL OH? Peed Opem 


tl ,tnemtote edd yt be aeyo sew tavoote epalvee taooes ede eile oF 
‘peowld yostom ade tom eee yor ,dawonsa egulvee Casathee Oa Bow et 
asttann iamvee 16% Aned Os te belitan yhiente\ gia giucood oss HE 
‘Ye avltacaiqne on aL otedd T8O08L coduyn deed wod.ab beten hae 

— Of Ulgaordn heed ade savdl Yolo xevieses emt al obie 
aa2en ost sou sneg 64 eden ous ow tut suokeimenoe wttanatase 
woke ers aw — ve at betése sacenex dd tot whale wide —J 










as ,WwreWEN ,goifsaaleas om Bl erat? a agaives  yunad ate : 


i #E win oF rae wrt — see 


& similar order wae entered allowing the claim of Patrick and 

Anne Selan as a preferred claim conditionally. We there hela 

that the order wae not final and appealable, and for the reasone 

atated in that opinion the appeal in this case ia dieniesed, 
APPHAL DISBI2ZEED, 


KeSurely, P. J., and Katohett, J., coneur, 





# 
J & 


peottud ,wiwkie Senate hud Bae Chad GO 






ebessdasts ef ones shi? of feages sit aokat 
— — I— — —— A Aaa Ay ake ¢ a , ae i — a * ote 
OHS Hin BP FogRoe pacaiet Veo Getane ge ‘paw ——— oath ae 
ane §otee —— —XRX 
Sad, A Pte mr Bee oe 
WS he Wee rare one wade w aa* — * aio — — 













———— gba Naren tee we Re SR 





Lev eoa eh ye sie MLL Soe ae ra — 
bg ih 






ae — wines — — * 





Resid — wena te wala J sikh wld * 20d ‘eae te bao a 
tenievon bor: pane tee hewbe aha Te at eee iia i 
seg U2 abate 28s a Seo ptbs neem -ahene BAR —_ 








ee eee (wbttndnlexe o6 2h pane ert a — 8 ae 7 : 
ee vanwoe et = — 
wae Set aay ye — E — er ewan th a 
waleinennt Lorton am'h au Oe —— 
bi ames fp take Ve ad eee Tene er are a “hal — we | 
—X Ga Loa hee: ieee BS ve ARE 7 g ick ae: eharmtewen om en at 
vee en ne ee ee ee ee : : 
Aide een ev ROleew ea ad been Neeee WD aa ‘wots ‘nude ty 
Re iweh, cA Ak ii eA Oa an Eg KTS soi. a Lye 
wesde hae gartives obiee pay Sek —— ee ost ae a 


Ree Me 



















36730 mor) F 

é 
WAS, JHARIE 7 P A 

Appellee, ⸗ 
TERLOCUTORY APPHy 
Ta, # 

: FROM SUPYRIOR COURP 

CARL A, CARLSON #t al. 


— — — 


CARL A. CANLGOR and AYKA FP, CAMLGON, 


} OF COOK COUNTY. 
Appellants, } 


6 Vay) 7 je se . ~ 
270 1.A. 626 
MR, JUSTICE GC 'Corron DELIVERED THE OF INTO OF THE COURT. 


By this appeal Carl a. Garison and Agha ¥, Carlson {who 
will hereatter be designated 2s tne defenionta) the makers of two 
promissery notes aggregating 915,000, paymunt ef which was secured 
by a trust deed ou oertain promises in Cook county, Tilinols, seek 
te reverse an erder of the Superior eourt of Gook county appcin ting 
a receiver in a wit brought by complainant te foreclose a trust 
deed. The appointment was made om the verified b1ll1 te which 
were attached the notes and trust deed as exhibits and made « part 
thereof. 

The question therefore is the sufficienay of the allega- 
tions of the bill. It was alleged in the bil} that on June l, 
1920, defendants being indebted for $15,000, executed thedd’ twe 
promissory motes, one fer $5,000 due one yeur after date, and ene 
for $10,000 due twe years after date, ete. To secure the payment 
they executed the trust deed in question, It was further alleged 
that the two notes were overdue amd unpaid, ahd that the trust 
deed provided that immediately upon filing a bili to foreclose, 

a recciver might be appointed to collect the rents. The trust deed 
contained a provision that a receiver might be appeinted in case 
of default without notice and without regard to the solvency or 
insolvency of the makers and without regard te the value ef the 
premises. The foregoing are the only matters that are material te 


OY 
ny — 
in. - — 
by ; * ——— F 
4 ’ 





* 

X OSA so — ane 

of X — E — de shite big ig : 
———— 


nos ‘gets: tue Oa 
| Be Pater wT , 








_ ROR adv ANA nme WoREAD aaa 


& asunile eye 


380 owe ovs Bee 


 SERIGS aur had soratag i annavi aua aoeaodio axes 





eity) soaizues .¢ 6nd bas mosineld .4 Sted Leaqqa eked va —— 
OME Yo wtedee ont (aS aebhun tes ont sa betvemygiaed of tad levied te 
Prusee sew dolsw to dawayagq ,000,048 gaidegetggs secon eronsinong 
toon ,plenifil ,ylaves 4000 ai spetuetg ateties «e boob tauet a 
galiatoqan ~isues sog2 “le duwew telrequG ext to sebto as nerves of 
fewtd a seeleetet oF Jaenlsiqags qd tdguese thus « ai tevisoon s 
dolidw o¢ itd beliinev df a0 shaw ane taaad aboage ont hn 
| dteq & Shux ban etidlides as boob sume jas eoten ode botontts omer 
eagaiis e437 Yo yatotol Ving off ef ————— aettaaup wee 7 — 
,f emul ao tact Lid e@ al begeife saw af Weerg out te enots 
aed thes batusexs .000,246 tet Seadobad gated aeaahae ted ad 
 ente Baa , oSahb —*— taey eno euh O60,2¢ a6? eae 12090 yronshaote 
dneayag od8 o1u900 OTF 289 ,0%ab tad'ts axery oOd wah 000, 048 Ro 
 begeile tedecet eae 31 .moddeene a2 book daust ont bedusexs yout 
 gasred oa Saud baw ,bieqoy Bow oxbtEve esow weyeu ove oda gaat 
sorofoenet ef Lid « wad dat segs Yletatbommt tadt bobiverg hood 
heeh gown? on? adaer end foolLos of Sotntoqqa od sxigin vrn⸗⸗r· 
oaas ab betatoggs od tdyte tovivoox # tam moletvorg » Bomtataen 
x0 Yortevion sd? of Dtaget tuadd iw dae eolton twodthw thumted Io 
oat 5 9 aka oa of bueyos Sumit bw tow — to x | 





be considered on this appeal. 

In the order appointing the receiver it is reeited that "It 
appearing to the court thet by the terme of the trust ded sought 
te be foreclosed in this proceeding the reste, insuee and profits 
from the mortaaged premises are pledged as additional security for 
the peyment of the sume secured by sueh deed of trast,” and that 
due notice having been given of the application ef appointment, it 
wae ordered that a reesiver be appointed upon complainant and 
receiver giving bonds, oto. 

Couneel for complainant in his trief eaayea that the record 
faile to centain “any certificate of evidence” that the facts are 
net breught to the attention ef this court that were before the 
chancellor, which are that the property had heen ecld for taxes in 
1928, that the taxes of 1929 and 1930 were due and unpaid, ad no 
portion ef the taxes of 1931 had been paid; that Carl A. Carlsen 
and Anna 7, Carlson, the defendants, had dispesed of their in- 
terest in the property. But we must take the reverd as we find 
it. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any of these 
matters as contended for by counsel for complainant were brought 
before the ehancellor. Fros the order appcinting the receiver it 
appears that the court made the appointment by virtue of the teres 
of the trust deed slone, There is nething in the record that shows 
there wae any default in the payment of taxes or that the Carleons 
had transferred their interest in the property, and there isa 
nothing to show the value of the premises involved. Fe have ra- 
peatedly held that the appointing of a receiver is net rarrented 
merely because the trust deed so provides, tut that it must 
affirmatively appear from the record that the appcintwent of a 
reeciver war necessary te protect complainant's righte so as to 
insure the payment ef the indebtedness. Frank vy, Sieced, 265 Til. 


App. 316; Bagley v, 11k. T. & 8. Bank, 199 Ill, 76; Zothman v, 





— 


elasqga shit wo borebieaes od 
#i* — * betiows wh oh perigee wake yatinteges tebre ads ak 


tdyuee Seed featd ed? to aarned wat yd gad dumew sett ot aatracgca 
atiterg hae sevsak ,afaot oA9 galboororg als’ ai hocaiverst ed of 
sot ySitwess fencisibba se begholg ote een tantg bonext tom odd merch 

gad baa “,tee8d to heob sows “yd betesge nme per) ‘te aoacea ‘et 


@h ,Peemisioege Yo taitaoliags off te aovlg sped yatved voae an a 


Aim @aacthetlomoeoe sequ botaiogaa od rovigees 2 saad horebto wav 
Ot ,abnod ‘gaiviy reri998t 
Higeet ods Jang ayes Tolud aid al dapoiadgaee tet feeaneb | 
@%s stact edd tect “goasbive te otanltidues. yaa* atas aos od aiket 
ad? @ipted aver dads faugo e262 Le sebiwetie edt od dguots tom | 
i aemae tet hive seed had giaeqerg aff dade ace do tde , vol toons 
(oH hae Dinqas bas owh o1ew GEOL how COL Ye named nat sent (eked 
agelteS A trad ett pateg aed Rat EGk Te naxs! oWy te usitwee 
~ai Bled? te heseqsif Aes ,atumhaa teh oft ,aoeten? .1 anad bed 
Bnd ew na Dropex oat ond team ow axl .qdamqane odd ot doomed 
Pas? ts ye jadt ‘tes tbat ot wigs of3 af guidteon a2 exon? o.82 
diguord etew taanlalgnes tot Leaawes yf 10 bahsndaoe am ersten 
tl sevlepox edt yaltalogas sebte ont motl. .eollogmmsto, act eteted | 
aared 949 Yo ewrtiv yd Famatatoage odd sham dawoe ost tadd oxnoqye 
avede tact bigses ait al gaiviten a2 axed? .enede Boab davnd att tor 


J engeited off ted? tp woxed By az Hwsted yoo saw etedd: 


ak oreds hoe ,yteqety of ab feeteéal tins? Sewetanen? hed 

oot vad oY ,beviova!l avaimorg ad? to outer sd? wode. oF ealdion’ 
iedaatiey fou af teviases « to patialoqqa oat. dade Disa ythesaeq 

| faum ¢2 seid ted ,aohivorg o9 heed tauts edt encgoad yietem 
6 Ye daectalogde ets sods bieoet ods mond wegqa ylovigemtltie. 

of R# Of AFKydy Oo doathoLguee soototg of -yuaratenm uw teNkedot! 
okt gan eAthet? Mears .saraheddobai edt to —— 
£100 44% ger | whe 





Lindstrom, 221 111. App. “62; Strauss v. Georgian Bldg. Corp., 
261 Ill. App. 284, and many ether cases, 

There being no showing that the appointment of the ree 
ceiver was necessary to sec that complainant would receive full 
payment of the indebtedness due hor, the appointment was un- 
Warranted, and the order is reversed, 

ORDER KEVEAGED, 


MeSurely, ?. J., and Matohett, J., concur, 


| A — on 
“et deel * * sialon a a * — “non 





110 Nae Gas ce Gh e 
— ———7—— 





9 58* — By, 







A —E— — 





ile alee He OO Se a eee Ga ein sft 
Th Rae Sait Rea ae Gat Rg — —— ——— ——— 
stor 
—* art sobbed je 4 
* en — a eo ba 5 544 os ie ie J bie A ee eat —— 
fei Ce. ay Sane “Me eRe Site” Rai ecees wit sa 


i ea a re tei alana: * 
Oe REE A OR. et AO SEE oe 
WOES Toke. al Jee OG Sti: OM Ahi makina inal ant: ARO 
RATES ohh SRR Meche, hee ceed, Bawl AG Ne anes wilt, Ane cotinne. 
“He Sint le hewn ls bon pwhewbmatial owaee — geomet. Ts saa en 
Ge? OY Oe Riwows salt Ue at. 18 eee Miele cial Saeed 
AMOR TG itis RHEE Rob Nee OR ype awn ak meee «tit 
VigeOae Hey Faia lewom et Aewewim, by. 76 Lat oe ae at ee 
S nowdeody 987 Kekratagas when wad, done ee Laine, gett etait 
STEER 8S BRL Se Penne 2h ale ait ets — wake Cael ep te 
Ri 4 ai ae — etn hook deane ‘ath 
i i ee ee ae eae et, ‘eat. se 
BR ART Ae SES ee male. delta bai. % 
SET EER ON aT a, deanery ob ae Biase - 
eee La ere nr eee tae rere tikes —»— “a 
; Reem td taht 2 poke vets we, a teed gaa tina 
| 429 GO GRua te Oh? Sucts. tame — 
Leh a Bie he hs te Susans oe hee Rig ig “hahaa ae 
eh RAE TS Bes 15. «eebedipad alk ‘eae ————— orwint· 


— lng EOS, PWT hid TOE gage 





* 
a 


tl 
a 
© 





—* — 


é if — 
36340 VA / in —— 


— — * 


DOWMSY COAL COMPANY, ) 
a Corporation, 

Appellant, 

APPRAL WOM MUNICIPAL 
Ve 

TAIVIA S¥ARTZ COURT OF GHECAOGe 4 

, 

Appellee. 270 hee 626 


Mi,» PARSTDING JUSTICE SCANLAR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Phaintiff sued defendant in the Municipal court of 
Chicego in contract. There was a hearing before the court 
and at the cemelusion of the «evidence the issues were found 
ageinet plaintiff.  fiaimiiff bas appealed from a judgment 
for coats entered upom the findings Lefendant has not filed 
am appeeranee nox a brief in this courte 

Plaimtii? sued te recover $110+65 fox eonl delivered 
te certein premises owed by dufenmdent. ‘The statement of 
claim alleges that the coal ws deliversd to amd secepteda at 
the said premises with the knowledge, consent and acquiescence 
of defendant, whe used ali of the coal upon the said premises 
in the hesting thereof. The affidavit of merits, mace by Max 
Swarts as agent of defendant, states that she has a goot defense 
te the suit upon the meritsg that he, Max Swarts, hac been 
purchasing ¢oal from plaintiff from March, 1923, to September, 
2929, upon an open and ruaning accounts that defendant never 
ordered ner purehased any coal fran plaintiffg that plaintiff | 
contracted and dealt with him, Max Swarts, and that therefore 
defendant ics not indebted te and deec net owe any money te plain- 
tif’ for coal nox for any other purposes 

The ease is one of five, involving practically similar 


— Agog |b a a oe Gale 
—— 
ae na . 





: , watiena 


a: a ODS Oo POs - 


‘aga wee 


eTHVGS BHT WO WOLETTO ait or haan | ——— hs ey | maT ni 
4 — —* in 


te J umes Lechetnut off mt — 
faueo off ougted gaixsed « saw ote? «dentine al og 








| htuot exow aewent odd oousbive ods Yo tolavivxoe edd io bam 





botth tou oad danbucted egndoods add nogu bored adees 46d 
: »dawe9 — — at tedud # xn | . : 
hoxewideb Laem wt 8as0Li§ xeveuss of bens vibiatels 
ee ee ae oe ee * 108 
fa bedqeves bas a2 boveviied aew Lace one tome eogeile mtelo 
eensvacinpan Gue Mivemee gegiuivoud oad détw aouimorg Bice od 
avalueng diae edd soqu Lago add Ye Ste boa ody gdnninoted to 
xa yd sham satdibe 3o hvsblte edt  « eoxedld  githd oad ante oh 
euneted soog o eat ale fad? avdata —E te nage es Daniell 
mood fost yataued il gad daly tadiven edi acau due ett of 

a Fea oq Bh od 2GROl tore work tiléatalg aovt Leos 2s 
‘oven gnabusteb fads giaweoon peters brits wage aa og es | 

aut oↄnut atg duds AUiNdmtaLy wed Lavo wm donastomg x05 orodie ' 
oretexeds suid ona edie xa sake wilw éiesh bum dots id “ J 
wataty 08 YougR YO CHO fox Sndd Sue OF doddodak Jom ob suabuered — 




























“Re 


facts, which were all submitted to the trial court upon one 
heoringe 

Ti wae agreed between the parties that under the pleadings 
the burden of proof shifted to defendant to sustain her defense. 
Under Rule 15 of the Rumicipal court of Chicsge every allegation of 
feet in the statement of claim mot denied specifically or by 
nesescary implicstion im the pleading of the defendent must be taken 
ae admitted. The trial court se held dud deferment sequiesced in 
the finding. Therefore, under the pleadings, defendent admitted, 
first, that she Was the owner of the premises in questieng second, 
that the conl sued for was delivered to and accepted at said 
premises with her consent and agquiescenqes third, that the coal 
was used in the hecting of the premises and wie necessary im order 
to properly heat the rooms and apartments thereim, and fourth, that 
plaintifg has net been paid for coal delivered to the premises to 
the smount of $110.05. I¢ will be noticed that the affidavit of 
merits is made by Max Swarts, the agent of defendant. It appears 
that plaintizf did mot know until after the delivery of the coal 
that the title to the property was not in the name of Max Svurthe 
but that after the coal wes delivered and used it discovered that 
Max Swarts wes simply the agent of defendant, entrusted with the 
management of the buildings 

Under the pleadings and the facts of this case defendant 
is required to pay for the conl im question. ‘there an agent enters 
inte a contract with « third person without disclosing his principal, 
the principal, nevertheless, is liable upon discovery, anc the third 
person mey elect whether to hold the prinvipal ox the agent iiables 
nor is the crediter compelied to elect until he has knowledge of ail 
the facte surrounding the transaction. (See Limousine anc Carriage 
Mige Coo Vo Shedburnes, 185 Ile Appe 403, 406 Kodish v» Bullen 


-8- 


— 


ete smog oxvee Lebes ous of S2imdue ile orew doidw eatont 
ayitbentqg oft sebmy Joke coltusq ed? meewted boos aaw @T * 
soateteh tod atetevs of taahasted of Sodthde teovg to nebiad oft 
te aolsaqolle ‘ques epcokto Ro suo Lagkokems ot 20 OL ofuh soba 
wi 19 YLkeatiisegs betash som mtete te tmometete odd wh tom 
odes 66 Sun daokavYSh bits Yo gubdsolg odt at ‘Rotdndtignt yrseneden 
ai beosetuyos snsbustod bad dfed oa duo Lotti od? . abedétaba oa 
shottiade suudustes yayntdantg odd cobuy quxotered?  «gubbalt aad 
qbooess {aebtadsp th edutateg ed? WW viiten eile “daw'édi take gbeukt 
biew ga tedqouss bua of boxoviLed awe wt deus ‘Kaos eit dads 
Luoo eid galt .otidy yoomvarvlapes Sma tmeanes vod dew ape naibity 
ebro ai qxeteoven ear bas enaimerg utd To yudeied od wh baw Baw 
tad? gdbqwot dae yatoteds wtoonsanqn ta nmmOx oa! dood —eseqord 6d 
ot avaimoxg olf of hoxovifeh Leee cet ‘ota toda den Gad Vidabaly | 
Yo dtvebdi Ye ede Gadd Hookion od ity sT 18d.0LE9 Yo snmemn osté 
wiasges #t sttebastes to somga odd quveawe nat yo oll ad tien 
S00 odé to exsvbfed vd red'ts Lishw wend gon bts P1RimbaTG deals 
exdtiwt xait Ye ema oof at som oow YWreoqong wee oe eLehe odd dans 
teald werevoostd of doew das bevevties saw Law aad 160%s as ae 
add Adie gederttas ———⸗ xe sxege odd YEgtle aaw abtow! x 
- anh Bul Reset ode to 
érabaoted usd afd) To atest wl? Aha dguisestg odd ten 
ex0dtd Ions we oxo! .woldsoup AL Lads odd <ot eg Of betiwood ah 
elagtontiy aid guiveiocts iwedsiw wewseg bubds a dikw tooxdnoe edith 
hrtdd sald Se gyteveoals woqw Sdakk at gaueLedixeved «Leghoatsq odé 
feldals Yavye wld vo Leqtontuq ond eed 0% xeddedw soote You moareq 
Lia te oybeiwoml wast el Liaw douse oF SoLtsinie Yostteds add of Yon | 
Sgeksis) oun ombawouts oot) — — ———— —E 




















ase 


10 Tle Appe 566g Doan et ake ve Duments 17 [lle 272%_ 275% 


Sehengel ve Stevengoms 153 Mass. 551) 


"'If any innocent party ie to euffer, it shall fall 
him who enables the suppesed agents, under his authority, 
te impose on otherse nd it is upon this principle that t 
principal may frequently be bound to third persons for acts 
of the agent in violation of his exprees private inotruetions, 
although the agent himself would be liable to me oe 
—* ye 
: 


for the breache* tax 9 17 Tlie 2972, 2 
89 ib. *.* —— 


648, 6506 


“It has from time immemorial been to some extent 

Quat for agents to de in thoir own namea the business of 
princi im sueh Gase the principal, when discovered, may 
be sued and held as such, ox he may voluntarily come fervard 
and claim the benefit of the contracts made and business dene 
by the agent. Mechem on gency, Seems 695, GIG, TOL, TED. 
4& principal may enfcree the payuwent to himeelf of unsealed 
written undertakings taken by ond running to his * 
Yational Life Ings Coe ve Allens, 116 Hanus 396." (Hair ve 

Seatern Nate Bank, 50 Tile Appe 211, 2140) 


befendant eentended that she was not known to plaintiff 
at the time of the delivery of the coal, but this fact would not 
release her from liability under the facts of this enna. 







"A party to a contract, upon discovery of the fact 
that he hac been dealing with the agent of an undiseloscd 
—— may hele the latter linble in domages for any 

each of the contract.” (Longo vs Lewigs, 252 Ille (ppe 


a ree ee en 
Legally and equitebly defendent is indebted te plaintiff in the 
sum of $110.65. 

The judgment of the Municipal court of chicago is 
reversed, with a finding of feet, and judgment is entered here 
im favor of plaintiff in the gum of £110.65. 

REVERSED WITH A FINDING OF PACT AND JUDGMENT Hin ke 
Gridley and Jullivan, JJ+, coneure 












FPIBDING OF PACT. 


We find as am ultimate fact in the case that there is 
due plaintiff from defendant the eum of $110065- 


or em kit be — «7 sia fo anol gba sah * * 
—DDD ————— 
Einita at rhe oe of Uireg tmeoonat ¥ 


—— oO omy a. meek rat be 7 


: — ——— — — —8* 
4 od bhsow — 












1 howe ond Apter ty? 
© RRS SRR MY @ 
SSSI ea ae 
Gi Sie & ae 
————— 
meat 9 S07 m4 2558 snoed 
@ tisemiad v2 


Widutoin of swensd You war eke aout —E ———— ne 
| a at ot sh ot ae 





ak onto of tonto ok death tape be tage 
—VVV———— 
sind boupdwe ot tacah baw ydoat bo gmbtutt isin nail 
pathy ——— 
5 A SN: Ck RIS A NR ROE: — 
—VVVV——— 


se 
© Ua aed a es M may i Was Be 3 — * 


ge ROAS OO. ORREEEE, tyeke Gad bes tap 

ea wired? Sed oaon. etd mi @oak etnahetegm nn het a8 o> iz 2 768 
oBBoOLEe te ae ode — mrt Witntalg emb 

| a7 'S, Sei a He 3 tak < ae 


pene WP a tat! ue i 3 B X oa —JJ ie See ee | we — 
Ren pn ont * Re ie * Ath AWE is wa Ais A PARAS —V— * —— Be wm gino 4 — 
Bact r ’ — yeah AR 4 Pa sae Ie ny ey tera pie babs Prorat i os a ae 


—E— 


36342 


OPER — 





—E — 
— 


DOWREY COAL COMPANY, 
@ Corporation, 
Appellant, APPEAL PROM MUBICIPAL 
Ve COURT OF GHICGAGO, 
EDYTHE SSARTZ ami BETTY MOGKO, 


appadleese 270 I.A. 6265 


WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SCANLAW PELIVERES THY OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff sued defendants in the Municipal court of 
Chicage in contract for the sus of $99.50. The ease was tried 
by the court and the issues were found against plaintiff. Judge 
ment was entered against plaintiff and in faver of defendanta for 
coats and plaintiff has appealed,  Defeuilants have mot filed 
appesrances nor a brief in this court. 

This ease, together with the preceding one (Downey Soa} 
LGe Vo Swartz, Appe St. Gens Boe 36540, opinion handed down this 
date) and three other cases were all submitied te the trial court 
upon the one heering. “laintiff'es statement of claim and 
éefendant®' affidevyit of merits were similar to those in the pre« 
eedimg onze and the sole defense was the gene, and what we have 
said as te the lew in that ense applies with equal force to the 
instant one» It is net disputed that if defendants are liable 
the balanee duc plaintiff is 259259. 

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chicsge is 
reversed, with a finding of fact, and judgment is entered here 
in favor ef plaintiff and against defendante in the sum of $59.50. 

REVERSED WITH A FINDING OF PACT 
AMD JUDGMENT HERE 


2 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJ», eoncure 





— — 
wghwt thdatadg fomdage hie) wey emmeak of? bem Samay ot nee | 
107 Abris hera r· ¶ Ye reveR at bas Wikvelaiq dintogs borides cow inom 
“eens Jo ovad —— thefeoigs see Tabet dae ates 


 "laeveo eiee at’ — aesomroonga 





edt 24 sprue RV———— 
oidurl ore atuabnotod th sod? odugnth fom ab sl. yus eadont 
d· daß od DURMotaL oud comntad ost 
at ognols? te fume — Be Seppe, OMT oro ow 

exe bevesue at steumowt, one .foxt toe gatbalt o diiw ebearever 
208.029 Yo aime sats ui adundusted famiage baa Thisnlalq Ye weve? ai 





rae ne aE B® | 
utes aerek Bbw: ube aun 


cece 8 eae oD 





PINDING OF FACT. 


We find as an ultimate fact in the case that 
there is due plaintiff from defendants the eum of 
$59.50. 








ce satr mnt aati 


it — 









\ J 4 rf is 
⸗ OR 
36343 x i ff i 
% J 
J i) i 


aq 
* 
———— ———— 


THE Te Ae SHIDER PRESERVE COMPANY, * 
a Corporation, for the use of 
HARTVORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY 
COMPANY, a Corporation, 


Appellant, APPEAL FROM SUPIN TOR 
Ve COURT, COUK COUNTY. 
io — TRUS? & SAVINGS BANK 
3) ee 8 Dy OT Px 627 


UK, PRESIDING JUSTICH SCAMLAN DELIVERED THR OPINION OF THE COURT. 


The Te Ae Snider Preserve Company, a corporation, for 
the use of Hartford Accident & Indemmity Company, a corporation, 
plaintiff, sued The Peoples Trust & Savings Bank of Chicago, a 
corporation, defendant, in aseumpsit, to recover the sum of 
$2,256.08, with interest. The ease wos tried before the court, 
with a jury, and at the conclusion of the evidence of both partiea, 
upon motion of defendant, the court directed a verdict for cefend- 
ant. Judgment was entered upon the verdict and an appeal followed. 
We reversed the judgment and remanded the cause. (The Te Ac Snider 
Preserve Coe v> The Peoples Trust & Savings Bank of Chiengo, (bate) 
255 Ille Appe 619+) The case wae then tried by the court, without 
@ jury, and at the conclusion ef all the evidence the court found 
the issues for defendant and judguent was entered upon the finding. 

Plaintiff has again appealed. 

Bo point ic made as to the plesdings and there is Litile, 
if any, conflict in the testimony. The Te Ae ‘Mider Preserve 
Company conducted a large business throughout the country. It 
employed from 250 to 300 anleomen, district managers, steck clerks 
ané warehousemens and, in addition, clerical help to the aumber of 
150. It wae a large depositor of defendant bank and on January 1, 


“ 





i : A x 
i Beata 
| Uh" alae 
_ to enw ests 
° oT & 
HOT TIWWA MOAN LucitA ataaltoggs 
° a asi pe a8 
'$g0.A1 org —— — 


sTH009 BHT UO WOLMITO ANT GanivELas: —& ALU, MAGLosa a 


fp Serle 
: Se 


1% ~ROLsonogeos & yymnqeDd oVIEEsT TOHKAe oA oT ont 
sneksvzoqzos a yqanqmed Yimmobal 4 fxvbhooA broteecl Yo saw wee 
soul Yo Smal agntvel & towel getgoot oa? bewe «Yeiiatale 

Me win weld wevooed of gdteqeaana mt qtnabaeted gmodderoqses 

atte ef? eieted bebud sew e200 ont -faovwsut atte *Bds pence 
—R A⸗o te bamwdive wld to motewlones edd to bas ‘oerut a déhw 
ebaetes tet dokbrey « bedeotts Sxu0o edd ptmaheo'ted to moltem en 











amen ok Le feeqqa na tne dobbuoy oat requ borates sow srommbut « 


webin® 24 s3 edt) — ct ist de alaiea tal 
(s$ads) ,onopdt9 Yo kel anal vel 4 fous? sokgowt ed? «vy 09 ovzegontt 
Suodthe qturoo old ye betad matt eow waco oT = «(0£0 sqgh -Lft Bae 
beer sues vit gonvbres etd Ltn Yo motawTenos ent do bas eyivt & 
caetbakt ou? woqu doxodie aaw Ioomybal bes tuabmoted wer sowmal oat 
shokeeqqe thage sat Desatert 
eOX0diL at exerts Sow opatboodg of? of no obaw of dateg of = 
ovienexl tohie vA oP OMT  oymombtuod vad mt SolE Lane uae bot 
$Y eyxtmon aft tradywout? contend eytal 2 befeebuee Yonquel 
axxefo doade qntepemm solidels gnemsoLea O08 @¢ GBS mort boyotqud 
to vedawm al? of qLot LooteeLo gmedsthbe at , bas gmemecwodexaw dae 
af Yrowmet Ao ban dos’ sushestod Yo xodtoogsd wgtal & caw #1 ORL 





“20 


1927, had a surplus balance of $660,457.19. It employed Paul M. 
Hart as district eales manager for its Philadelphia territory and 
he engaged the anlesmen, stenographers, warehousemen and truckmen 
for that distriet, approved their ealaries and expense items, con< 
trolled the activities of these employees in general, and approved 
the saleamen’s reports of sales and expense vouchers and sent the 
some to the Rochester office of the company, where pay checks, 
based on such sales reports, were then mace out and sent to the 
payees thereof. Plaintiff claimed that between Kay 4, 1926, and 
December 6, 1926, Hart made out pretended sales reports of a 
fictitious person designated as “David Myron," giving his address 
at various hotels throughout the country, which reports were sent 
to the Rochester office together with other genuine reports for 
the purpose of having pay cheeks issuec thereon by officers of 
the company, and that the officials who signed and countersigned 
the cheeks made payable te David Myron had ne knowledge that the 
payee was a fictitious persony that Hart woulé then cash these 
ehecks at various places in the United States, and in same instances 
he secured personal indorsements while in others the checks beor the 
indorsement of the fictitious payee only.» ‘The alieged forged cheeks 
were im due course presented te defendant bank, upon which they were 
érawn, and it honored them anc charged them against the account of 
the Snider company. The Hartford secident & Indemnity Company had 
igsued to that company a bond insuring it against dishonest acts of 
Hart, and when the alleged forgeries were discovered that company 
filed a claim against the Indemnity company for the amount of the 
alleged forged checks ond the Indemmity company paid the claim in 
fulle 

Beth parties submitted te the court a number of proposi- 
tions of fact and of law, but mo question has been raised by plain- 


tiff in ite brief or argument as to the court's action im reference 


LM toa bovodente #1 .QLeT0_0909 Yo soneted auiqum # bad Per 
deo yxotivied stdiqhodndiad aft wet weyenem volae foixiold ea faut 
forivnd bmx semovodoraw gexesigommennde qmomnehen oii hogagae od 
amen qoueth vamogxe baw wpdingen thed? bivenges sderabotd ⸗au⸗ voꝛn 
de vo aaaa wae giaxoneg at aseyotges sands Yo watdivises eat wontond 
(ea Stee bmn eater ounogxs mn sokea Yo wtuoqer enemeetan nild 
puigasto yeq avedw a ymoqmeo eds To soltte qedaodeoh od et ouas 
vote ot teem sae $0 Gian moc? oxen aagstqer seen doen ao Bead 

" fe gBROL gb Goll meowded sacle bomtake TUdeteli steosed? aeoyed 
W adcnqet cokes hobuedong soo Thom drei eRe d todansee 
segtohe ghd gaiylg "smoTyl Sived”. — 2 — 
Seas oxow adteges dotsiw eyrtaues odd dwadgwouts slefed apehsay | 
202, o⸗ — — —⸗ prot Sasdoot 
— boa, tempt coe akabobibo att ta, bmg a 
EN Ee 

| aed? stew ods Mon Fal Gad: aM 















ae 4 et 








ws sea sonal ant axadte x aoaca LERGRT OT J 
edorasts bonxat bowedtn oat | sae oryag awpkebsars 











‘Ww afva sronmtast — wane abet. aaa ore ‘ 
“Glogeeo desld NexevecRth exw eelrepret Aogetin edd mew bam ofall 
ond Te dros sot ret yeoqame YFAnanwort nde semtage state 9 bottt 
mh take nett Diag NEES, ARNE, nt Aen tome tata —E 












tnogers te ——* a twee, eda a8, —— une i —* 


——————— 











o3e 


te the same. The sole point raised by plaintiff tea “that the court 
erred in its general finding, denying the plaintiff's right of 
recovery." Defendant contends: "“Virst, that under the evidence 
the plaintiff has not proven that the endorsements of the payees' 
names were forged. Second, that even if the record had contained 
competent evidence that the names of the payees had been endorsed 
upom the checks by Paul M. Hart that the cheeks were paid to the 
very persons to whom the plaintiff primarily intended them to be 
paid. Third, (even if it be ageumed only fox the sake of argument 
that a forgery has been proved) that notice was not given te the 
defendant within o reasonable time after plaintiff learned those 
very facts which it now aubmits te the ceurt ae establishing the 
fact of forgery of the checks sued upon herein.” Defendant has 
aasigned eress-errera, Viat “The findings of fact by the court that 
there was no euch person ns Devid Hyron and that the salesmen’s 
expense accounts bearing the name of tevid Myron were falsely and 
fraudulently prepared and submitted by Paul Me Hert for the purpose 
ef deceiving and eausing plaintiff te iseue checka payable to Devid 
Myron, a non-existent person, amd the holding of the court an a 
preposition of lew that the endorsement of the mame of David Myron 
om ench of the checks was a forgery." Defendant states that “the 
assignment of these ecross-errors is based upon defendant's centention 
that the court could not heve mace euch findings of fact nor held 
that the endorsements on the cheeks were forgeries execpt by giving 
effect to certain incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial evidence 
$e whieh defendant had objected and for the admission of which 
éefendant has assigned additionel csrous-etrorse* 

Plaintiff had the burden ef proving that the incorsenents 
en the checks in question were forgeries, and it claims that it 
proved that david Myron wos a fictitious person created by its 
employee Hart, and that the indorsenent "David Myron” upen the 





—* att gacdd* ah Yotiabade yt. beulaxy.daleg aioe ehh + omng odd 98 
4 ddiyiz a’ Tedmieds ot? gatyoad «gahdatt Lexar add a2 bowee 
semahl ve ved eit sad gtyttt" cabmémen, dnebanted “a ysoreogs 
“tepeynd of2 bo adwomontebem oct decd aevong don eet Titatedg oft 
hewhetmee fat Yaoeex oe? 22 maya gest ghamoe’ »beguo’t. exer secant 
aid GY tdeg evew etloeds nit draft P1ek oh dee’ ‘ef safonsio- ont many 

od od meth dobuctat VLixumbag Ltntady odd mele OF eceanod EON 
odd ot avvty dom cow eoliom tutt (hoverq aved ancl yxegret edit 
wild pittdat tsiagen cm dxisep ost? od néladue won st Sotdy adeat.quer 
ook tembaeted  *yalewed megy bowen gigesin afe, Le. Ys b te goat 
duis Peo ott ed donk Io ayethatt eft" ade — — 
etmomeeinn odd tate bee BOTY bhwel en Montag steae 9 gar gues 
‘bat Usete? oro ming Rival te omen Md aodavod atmos nanegee — 
eangtiy GA? cot dxal ol Muel qi beddiades one baxegord chimeLubaag? 
Rat od ehtegng astoods auast of Titembeka wabeaso, bmw, gatytooeh, Xo 
ee ee ee ee 
| Ge tacit estate srohmetet — Te yroyEet « sam ateado od? Yo doa.mp 
MOiInetuKe ui siushaotod megs boned ah stwTteeeMeTs cnet Te soommatees | 
best tou donk te spathadtt deve stat owed don hsog auweo, walt tadd 
gatehn YS tqooxs ovivoyue? exew amends acd mo etmampenohma pad, dant 
obavbiv> Latrodemnd tose ydmavaternt ysuedoymomt mstran os speRhe 

xe | Mee OTRERvoTE Lonetitone Dommtnen wait ImcbmeRRd 
sianmeotobmh eee Sets yakvow, te mebtud ost boo Thigmtal ae 
$2 Cnet? ambady ot oem 4 eobragteh exe mobtuany pjasooile setae 
Rat Ud botsots nenmg aupidives? @ aor en 

eels maga “aoTwk Dive” free TOE of) gas? dae «Ptah weyetam — 








70 


vack of each of the checks in question was a forgerye To prove 

ite ease im that regard plaintiff introduced a deposition of 

Leon 5, Lewis, who testified that in March, 1927, he went to a 
house im Philadelphia to which the checks made payable te David 
Myron had been mailed and that he there interviewed the landlady 

of the placeg that she told him that she did mot have «a roomer by 
the name of lavid Myron but that Mert did room with her and that 
when the letters addressed to Myren were received Hart told her 
that he would teke them and deliver them to Kyron, whe was one of 
his salesmen. The witnese was further allowed to testify that he 
hed interviewee Hart and that the letter steted thet Myron wae a 
salesman whe hat worked for him im the Philadelphia territerys 

that “I told him I did not believe it) that I had made some ine 
vestigations; and he then told me that he wae badly - thet he, 
personally, wac badly in debt, he had lest money gambling, and had 
reported this saleaman purely fictitious and had used the proceeds 
of our checks cent payable te David Myron." Defendant objected 

to the imtreduction ef all this testimony "or the growed that it 

is ineompetent, irrelevant, and iumzaterial and constitutes henraay 
and it is not binding on the defendant in this cases" The court, 

im ruling upom the objection, held that the testimony was incompetent 
te prove that Myron was a fictitious persen and that the indorsenentes 
were Tergerics, but he allowed the eridence to stand upom the ground 
thet 1¢ might heve a bearing upon the question of the alleged negli- 
genee of the Snider campany im reporting the alleged forgery to the 
bank within a reasonable time. Certain witnesses were allowed to 
testify, over the objection of defendant, that they had heard or 
believed that Myrom was a fictitious person, and in each case it 
appeared that the only kmovledge of the witmess on the aubject was 
what someone else had told him or her. In view of the court's 
statements at the time he admitted this hearsay evidence, it is 








eyo OP oemeguot # aaw mebtaeuy mh ealvedy ony to dolls te deel 
Yo wolsiacyeb » beovboxdut Yildniety Rarge't told mt evno bet 
i OF dees of GVBOL qaowal a) sald Hetittasd ety gabent of) moat 
Ot cnet a ove dom Heo ou Pode mid Shed ode ood qovadg sae ww 
toot es rest tty coven SLD deel Fost! tad wor btyet te oman ome 
‘cat fet gio bovtsess oxew mere of bowwteeie axedset ome mode 
ome caw ate noryl od weds wertfel bee meds saad bkwow od Sante’ 
eh dest CRbeans Ot Hevelia sesturt anw euomdiw ent saemveion elit 
aan MOTO tat Hodate v9stuk walt SeMs ome sak dowel vended Nal 
getoriexed abdqtodelia oft mt mish wet botvew hat èé 
est omen wham heal 2 gad g¢h wwehiod gem bbb T mbt btee To game 


fo giadtobasta oe Ltt sow wel Gauls) oar bLod atts oct bee qemmkeagheeey 


hoc hn qynlicimmy youds teal carl ett gddod mi yihad naw Ait ⸗aoa tg 
«donnda sit hou ban er aMOLIEIGEY Cena mommoLeR whtt bebnor⸗n 
be ddod a suatnoted | “seexyll Slvat ed wdemgny toe exodeto’ dao te) 

Gt dud Deeseny od wo” qrombene? ated Lie te a9 “watt 08 


WMxsed setutivenss bar Leltededet Deon gtmave Lowel ytmodegmomh et 


gitvee af? ".eneo obit oh dendeetet sate wo gutoatd domemt: oh dae 


taodogmmnnt naw yoni ten? emt tastd. Mind yuotsvotéo eit moqy yoktuw ab 
etnonewxobat ete toe oie MONTAG BNORITODE? @ aa MOTE dold wverg ee 
hawory adi ogy Daate of vousbive sit hewolts val sue yadbvo_zet enewr 
“igen hoyelin oad To woLsnevy ont wegs ya eoad m wym setytar 9f saath 

wit of Ytogtel Segoila st .gattweque a? ymquere webtar ode be sone’ 





od bewelis exew asagontiv miuteed .emtd ofdenisior a ‘kbaetw tte 7 
to beoodt had yoas sail? perabestel Re moLIongdo ems cove (eTeeeed 
(OE seo fone mt hue gitbexog euObeLIeY o wow ROE dad novelties 
naw doobdun ei me seomdinw ef? to wgnetwondt yLme sald sat fou saa 
a otuon sald to woly wt kes TO mie Atos nat vate — mod 
af Sf yoemebivs Qartesd ‘wigs sevehabe nd dat tnd: * ie ie 














ote 


difficult to wuideratand how he hel’, o8 « fact and ag a prepesition 
of lew, that the indoraement of the name “David Myron” on each ef 
the checks was a forgery. Defendant hav sesigued croas-errer as te 
the admiseion of all of this heareay teotimeny and etrenveusly and 
justly argues that we uuet disregard it in our consideration of this 
appeal. Plaintiff ie foreed te take the untenshle position that 
the aliegoc statements ef Hart te Lewis did not conatitube hearesy 
evidences, “but, on the contrary, was competent evidence of a «tates 
ment and admission by Hart, explenstery of estters that were peeuliare 
ay within Hart's sole knowledge, namely, thet the name of the person 
‘David Myron’ plaeed By Hert im the Sales Neperts he sent im to his 
company wae pursly fictitious and that consequently there extated 
mG such person,” and that it wae competent evidenee and tended te 
prove in the stronugent manner that the indersenente in question vere 
forgeries.  Counsely of courses, cites no eases in suppert of this 
atgument. If pinaintiff were suing Hart, er if Hart were being 
prosecuted tm a criminal preceeding, his alleged adminsions would, 
of course, be competent, but im the ineatent ease they are mot binding 
upon defendant. Plaintiff does mot attempt to justify the evidenee 
that Lewis gave as to the alleged atatementa of the landlady, nor 
the testimeny of certain citnesser thet they had heard or believed 
that Myron wos & fictitious persons Of courses, had the hearsay 
evidence been admitted witheut ebjection 1: would be given probative 
effeet. The contention of defendant that plaintiff failed te 
estavlich, by competent evidenes, 9 prima fecte case of forgery of 
the indorsenents of the payecs’ nemee on the cheeks im question 
must be sustained, and it fellews, therefore, that plaintiff failed 
to make out = prima facie cuce agninet defendant. 

It appeare from the textimeny of Jean Moore, assiutant 
treasurer and ascistant secretary of the mider company, that che 
learned im December, 1926, of the elleged forgeries. In facts 


— — 


——— — — 


ae —— 


ee — 


——— 


ie 
— 
* 


noksteogesy aes ban toat % OH ebhed od wos trend eee bane holt Sizes? 
te owe He “aeryt arr⸗⸗ oman od? te tnowsatebat sits dash — 
ot an ue ris· avo vo bomahaaa, vad tashag red, qungen . a saw adoode off 





tine ‘ewomnests dern uaa tea ‘goes ane te fhe Eo awd 


ahd te Rote stbiston uno ma at bregom th ton on. taste cogs, * J 
—VV—— otaans 2 wit wind 92 boat’ ab rahe a 


wos-cead 282 damon ton Sth piwod. ed eal 36 atom 


nea oa * aan “etd ‘gaat a efoue — * aprons nts ste ¥ 











ot 96, form 94, st097%, Leh, St OAR NE 





ws bosne¢ ban anehiye seca agy 1 fat. 
wear pint tees mk edetoametobee sl Packt, seer 
ates 20 drocene ae Beene on sotte seers * stem, 


ge beaks son ore wa⸗ etal dandoat ovis cal ail Arnos 
opmonive ant? — agen ⸗o⸗ ton ase — 










i “hevahteg 0 Menod bai xo tasks — RE 
——— wanen quobttiolt m saw mot . 





ovitadorg movin od Afuow st nolseohée duedsty batttabs —— 
ds ———— MNoat at Susi anadnio tis *e mot inereoe ot | 


Qe eteas0? 20 ona, leah amiey « yeemebive seesaoqm0s Ye ‘oft bs we 
_ttncn ms trate off So, samen Soreyes off 3 nine —X 


— —E s * 


— eee 
‘tthe Saad qvmeqmon cobtut — 


—— Ses 


dont at seokmensel bee lto oft 09 yDEOE yg 














anted ore tra *t w9 a dod gehen whew u⸗ ate t a 


Aino emma here begotto ots vat soneng, —————— 4 am — se | | 


be 


the trial court found “as a fact that the plaintiff had knowledge 
of the alleged loes claimed upon ench of the cheokea in question in 
thie cnse during the month of December, 1926," and plaintiff hue 
not questioned in its brief nor argument the finding of the court 
in that regard. The first notice of the alleged forgeries given 
te Gefendant by the Snider company was by meane of a letter dated 
June 4, 1927, mailed to defendant. Pefendant contends that this 
failure of plaintiff te notify defendant within a recconsble time 
after plaintiff's discovery ef the alioged forgeries ig a bar to 
plaintiff's action, and it cites Findlay vr» Corn Exchange Mat. Banks 
166 Ills Appe S73 Firat State Bank & Trust Cos ve Firat Nat. Bank 
of Canton, 314 Wie 260, 275% — — 2ST 
LOT Ille Appe 455, and also decisions of eortain sister atates, in 
support ef ite contention, but in the view thet we have taken of 
this appeal we de not deem it nevessary to decide this contention. 
At the conclusion of the evidence defendant oubmitted to 
the court, inter alin, the following findings of fact, which were 
marked heldt “XV. The court finde as a fact in this ease that the 
primary intent of the drawer of the cheeks in question in this ense, 
at the time they were issued, wan to make said instruments payable 
te the person who signed the weekly expense accounts os ‘David 
Syron® and to whem the drawer fdorwardec said instruments at the 
addreas given in said weekly expense accountea.e” “XVie The court 
finds oa « fact im this enese that im the regular and usuel course 
of ite business the Snider Preserve Company receivec by mail from 
ite divtriet sansger and sales agent, aul /. Hart, certain 
éecuments entitled Saleeman's ‘eekly Expense Account,’ which sai¢ 
éocwmente contained certain itema for expences and commissions 
earned On supposed sales} that said Salewmn's ‘Weekly Sxpenes 
Aeoounts’ bore ot the bottom thereof, the signature ‘David Kyron’, 





¥% 


at metdnemy mb astousty ot! Lesions meqw totale esol Sogelta. sat to 
 grek Mibintody bea "BREE geeciwowtt ko demon ole gated sooo atte 
| ‘g@umep ode te gndhet) ott Saeaugue tom ated eff ah senedeseny Som 
| aye asiweguet dogetia off to soliton tackt oft + beagee nck we 
bated wedded a ts amon Yd wow YRaqase whias of? yt dnebsolted OF 
gio faci? abnedeos dgvhasted .tiahuehot of seddar 4tS0h 4) oh 
. tts eiinsowoet 9 akighw Saobueted Yee of Titeebale te emettet 
oe? sad & gh solwugros bogetia ot te eTevestia es Mitisteke sete 
ren oot «* yahbel? eedke 73 bam — —8 





a — take wledteo — aptshaed sae nao oA LE FO 
he sted, evar ow desks wwky wht nd sist gmoad aqages 








oak ino sm90 eidi vhieod oF Yavenven med —* ow iaogne aida 
* edd haa dmebars te i soashhve st? to aedaulomeo. EBA fore 4 | 
oxew Mokiie sdont te yeh oes aetkrral soy vd eSbiaatud qtsime oat 
“ets saad sann afd? ot Sot 2 ae eoekt duos ade «VES shied bestow, 
—D abd? wh aeidueug mt alone onle Ro yowand odd 20 ¢metah” ik A 
addayan adnosars dane Atos dem 99, nsw ¢ bosoms Aer ast: amie tt da 

| atxæce go wimug2on wemges Yiteow ait bemmle ode menteg wae ee 
a te otmoamtank dion deiorse? ewes extd sede Od —* 
“fuups edF 41VR" “adnwguee exmsqny EBloew bkea mt aevin saetihe, 
eames Kevan ont vedages od? mt fee oneg hdd oh duck a as abehd.. 
mort Liaw qd bevleset qraquod oywonert webhae and. cunntgud 4 ; i A 
metros Stull «uM Suat etagge antew be rwpetae dadstesd ott 

bine tnt “siawocoe aumoges pileo’" 9 ‘amma tat Inks tice. esa 7 
_ eteleainage tm eoacmgae iol amet mlqaze> pett nden odmemad | 
—— vt soseds 2 ons * ae, tafe fang . 



































oTe 


salesmen, and clse the legend and signatures, "falen Agent OF Panl 
Me Hart*g that Salesman's ‘Weekly Uxperse Accounts’ aleo bore uncer 
the cignature ‘David vyron', am addyrews purporting to be the address 
ef said named Dayid Myreny thet the Snider Preserve Company iseued 
the several checks hereim cued upom, to the order ef David Myron 
and mailed the seme, addressed te David Byron, at the addresses 
given on the afereseid Seleaman's ‘Weekly Expense secovnta,’ in 
relianee upon ond in conformity with said “alemean’s ‘'VYeekly Expense 
Agoounte'z and that ite primary intent when it itaqued and mailed 
the eadd cheeks was that the eamwe shevld be paid te the persen whos 
by means of suid Salecmanta "Yeekly Uxpense accounts’, reported that 
he Was entitled te the auounts etatbed thereon and to «hom it mailed 
the eadd cheekse” Ho question has been raised by plaintiff, either 
in ite points and authorities or in ite argument, av te theae twe 
findingas and defencant contends that under the facte thus found by 
the court the indorsements of the name “David Myron” upen the cheeks 
im question were net forgeries "inssmuch as the very person whom the 
maker primarily intended should receive and exnsh the aume did so and, 
eonsequentiy, the defendant bank only paid the cheeks ¢rawn upon it 
im accordance with the tenor of ssid instruments." In support of this 
contention defendant cites a number ef cnees. in the course of ite 
argument defendant ascerta thet even if plaintiff's theery of fact 
had been sustained by competent evidence the ects of Hart, under the 
circumstances, would sot have constituted forgery but would have 
ancunted te ebtaining money by false pretenses. “¢ do not deem it 
neeessery to pass upon this contentions 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is 
— APPTREEDe 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJe, ooeoure 


Lunt WO tuys axko0" qourtambe ome Dovged silt enka bas grameton 
Tet smd Gale futemood enmngnl ystve?t a Mommete® face 4¢ dxall olf 
saertse afd of wi gridregey qaochha ax y*eorg! hivat? evetemgte eft 

Sertsek Yegne werene anas eSs fund grey! bhweT hawan thew te 
emg Biest ke sooce scl) eo ghoge Bese akored elgado Lovoves ote 
ghee ie etd @2 gtoeyl ove’ of besecubbe —eameo ef? Bodiam oem 
tt fyadtatote: seen qideet' otammctot bkamawete ot qo mewky 
serene Yeon pinawele bow Adte Yeon ak hes mg enmmhen J 
o wide 
settings eTedawosy) onic “Ghlowit a taemnkad Btae te saan gs 
pation’ $2 ate ef a rteh sci — — 
—8 ntauiaig ‘qd ventax med sat mebiasip Of  "saadoade Bhaw elle 
oe — * od un ah ai <a wobeFroddch tae wdandg nal tt 
qd howe? aute adoo® eft sobmw dnd ebandiad suas haus ‘gaunt beck 
mdoade ott mow “nore dive” omen st e's —X — 
aks modin aosavei {u8y off En oun” web segrat eae 
eiaa 2 bb sue oat fons ‘bata ovioosx — — »— bog com 
#2 aq wath edovete of? dtog yino anad —— * ns nynn ne 
ate vo xoqque au —V — — — — bdo ‘We cennd wate dere | wirve J— 
th te gener ext? ef “seeene 26 coat » oath —** rik Sx Os 
tek Re yameds oe ttiimiedg St eve Haid sbtideh niniiRew simian 
as <wbaw gtxal to ofee orld seanwblve tardoquoe yd" beatetwon nese . 
_ vast lion sud use’ deta sk suse — — ——— 































36350 





GORDOW Ce THORNE, 
Appellant, 


ve APPEAL FROM MUMICIPAL 
THY FPORSMAH-STATS TRUGT & QOURT OF CHICAGO. 
SAVINGS BANK, a corpes, by 


veonselidation with the 
POREMAN TRUst & SAVINGS 


BANK, 
THE STAT: BANK wim fT 41 y - 
Or citc.co, @ sueneunndatie a ¢ V L.A. 627 
Appelieeo. 


MRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SCANLAN ExLivigcad THE OPINION OF THR COURT. 


Plaintiff sued defendant in the Municipal court of 
Chicage in a first clase netions <A jury returned «a verdict 
finding the iseues against plaintiff, judgment was entered upon 
the verdict and plaintiff has appealed. 

The statement of claim alleges that defendant is a 
vanking corporation; that plaintiff hes had, since January 15, 
1920, on general deposit with the State Bank of Chicago, subject 
to withdrawal on demand, the cum of $2,060+61; that on May 25, 
1920, he drew a cheek to hie own order in thot mum and presented 
the same to the said bank on  ugust 5, 1920, but that the said 
bank refused to accept the check or pay the seme; thet on Jmuary 
16, 1920, and at divers times thereafter the said bank, by ite 
attorney and assistant seeretary, acknowledged that it held the 
paid sum of $2,960.62 on general deposit to the eredit and for 
the secount of plaintiff, subject to a certain alleged cheek, 
dated October 23, 1910, to the order of “Cash,” im the sum of 
$2,000, drawn on it ond alleged to have been signed by plaintiff, 
whieh check the said officials stated had been paid to the holder 
about Jecember 129 19103 that the alleged cheek was neither drawn, 





JASROTHRN MORE Lae 
eORAATMD TO TANGO 





—— 0 0 pr — 


he T ———— wit a 
les one i 





“te duos Legtotnas au⸗ at tnabavtod awe musateags an 
doen a bomrsisd ox wank A " — 28 vate gent » we son J 





ange beretie ese Samay, Anaat ata —— — aa pot te 


ih, (Sale Oh A Ae 





ee ae 4 ) Cy 
| 8 ef smabaores tans souetia tate ‘te tea abs & ofS sia 


“ght qienash outs a Saud ott aniai tasit — saxogtee 


Eat Ree yd —* 


— odd athe “Hlacged Lereneg m0 ro 40R0L 
“gilt walt co Sauls 444080458 Le mum est ‘need am Komen of 
Aitvoneny bmn cue ould mt uebae owe aid of foeso & wexd ed 


Se Ga hey ad 
"than ed® dartd dard ees 28 tage: ‘a0 sinad Diss an? 08 grit 




















if Rot at EES asia 7 
Taunt to tad ome oll ‘wa Sade sit Cone ot eared 


a) —— 


————— —— éuatalees as ye a 
1 — i — — —D 
got bax dtoor odd of #taoges Loxenog wo £6 a8 Bo saw 


aS —J 


Ao aua oaus . Aa atedtao * ‘of footdun An ⸗a⸗ 


We DDDD—DDDDDDo—o————————— tangle on 


cTiigalalg YE bamata wend ovadt OF deyotia bme #2 to awath ‘0008? 


ee ee es cae 


baile J wlan! ; 
sane ssidiae wow Kons brante att ahd dnt | : wood | 







\ 


el 


“20 


signed, ner exeeuted by plaintiff, nor by any person with hig 
authority, and that plaimtis? has at wo time acknowledged or 
ratified the said cheek, or aceepted responsibility therefor in 
any Manner whatsoever, bub, on the contixrary, plaintiff notified 
the ssid bank that the said cheek did not bear his signature, and 
that the signature thereto was a forgery and affixed without his 
knowlecge or outhorityy that on October 20, 1019,the said bank 
informed plaintiff that the anid alleged check had been presented 
to it for peyment and requested plaintiff te inform it whether or 
mot it should be paid, th:t he then and there informed the said 
bank thet the eaid check should mot be paid ond that thereupon 

the said defendant refused to pay the said check on said datey 

thet the anid bank wee then and there placed upon notice that the 
eaid check wee not a valid obligation of plaintiff and that plain- 
tiff had disclaimed lisbility thereon, and it then and there become 
the duty of the bank to refuse to honor the said slleged check when 
again presented for payment, but the enid bank, not regarding ite 
duty, afterward, on Zecenber 12, 1915, paid the said cheeky “wheree- 
fore, the plaintiff alleges that the {tate Bank of Chicago ia indebted 
to him in the sum of 62,060.61, together with lawful interest upon 
$2,000 of said smount from Jamuary 16, 1920 * * *g" that the said 
bank was eonscolidated with the Yereman Trust & Savings Bank as of 
December 14, 1929, under the title eof The Yoreman-iitate Trust & 
Savings Bank, and under seotion 12 of the State Banking act the 
said The Toreman-State Trust & Savings Sank assumed all Liabilities 
of the consolidated banking corporations. 

The material part of the affidavit of merits sete up 
that “in the regular course of business it honored a check dated 
Ostober 28, 191, to the order of Cash’ in the sum of $2,000, 
drawn on the defendant (State Bank of Chicago) and signed ond 
executed by the plaintiff, and that the defendant denies that 


a Oe IT Ea — 
— 
fey 


— — — 


ole 

nid din neaxeg ye Ue von \Tidningg W deduoaxe zou yhenghe 

2@ Sogeelwermien emit oa te eurl Viidwhadg gems ona val vorddae 
th whores Yiiidieunqne: Sedqevee 16 «leeds Bie edt boltidae 
herhideoun Tiiteledg y»yreiiaes me mo * — — eee as 
bees eozmsousis eid twed dou 646 Aveade dies edd dude aaed bisa ed? 
als auoala ky need The Dre etowset ma ane osesens eustamate ‘ult — 
dnd er ate ener — sedesoO ae tas « esl vests te — | 
_ dotenaeng mend heat Apoite beyetis Stow wilt dati Vivabety —E 
ae eeddbade 42 mrotet oF did emiadg podeon ia seas tamaron 08 28 ot 
bhoe ose oomrotat stadt tae ant od Sod? yhteg of bwode Sh $0m 
somgpne tests Joitd us Skog vd eva Skwedty Xwede bas odd dutld -altind 
ie ded dies me dovsio dkan elt Yoq OF Hens ten ———— 








totw Hovde bogeLte ston st sone of mon ot at 20 ad at 









se phopsto ten, ont ‘abe. one ee eo eh 1 


hotdotak st egnott) Yo dest onde ott dane « ss od ‘ 


— ——— —— 
Dhow odd goals MG * * OSCE gk graeigh woxd samoms bios de 000985 
to an Mami apatyas & dawnt momowey eft date detehl {ons Vissi 
& tour? adadiomamoret eA Yo oLt24 oot robe, «AOL AL xodmopy: 
ad? doo pattand efett off te 8 moltoee ‘ahr ottal age 
eubsithdaks Lhe. ——— asene a 



















@ aden atiyon: — ——* 4 * * — wil * 
 hedad Hoole @ hexomed at aa! eee twea antago sit mY — 
⸗o galt wb, Noon? 2s rome att of t,t —R 






oahenn dome, J 





* sil —* lesa 


ose 


the plaintif? has not acknowledged or ratified the said check or 
acknowledged responsibllity therefor in any mumer, and denies that 

it wae motified prior to the cashing thercef that the aaid check 

é@id net bear the signature of the plaintiff, and denies that the 
signature wae a forgeryy and denies that it win, prior to the honering 
thereof, notified that the signature waa a fergery or that the signate 
wre was affixed without the knowledge or authority of the plaintirt.® 
Defendant slee filed a plea of the Statute of Limitations. To this 
Plea plaintiff filed a replication that the instant suit was begun 
within one yoor after a prier action bad been dismissed for want of 
prosecution, It appears that plaintiff, on August 5», 1920, instituted 
an action against tate Bank of Chicago, which woe dismiaved fer 

want of prosecution on June 3, 1951, and that the prevent »ction 

was camegneed on Oetobor 29, 131. 

Lefendant has assigned certain erose-errors ond in suppert 
of the seme stremususly argues that the trial court erred in refusing 
‘te direct a verdict for defendant at the close of pinintiffts cane 
and at the elowe of all of the evidence, and alee that the court erred 
im failing and refusing te direct a veréict for defendant upon defend- 
ant’s plea of the Statute of Limitations. in the view that we have 
taken of this appeal we deem it ummecessary te pase upon the merite 


of the cross-errors. 
Plaintiff centends that “the werdiet is against the 


manifest weight of the evidence.” After reading the entire transcript 
ef the evidence we are satisfied that the inatant contention is without 
merite in fact, we find ourselves in full accord with the verdicte 

Plaintiff contends thst the court erred in instructing the 
jury, at the imetanee of defendant, that the burden Was upon plaintiff? 
to prove that the dispubed $2,000 check was a fergery. The feliewing 
is the material part of the charge to the juryt 


* 
0 Ugisld bhed 9A? vodthd ae 1H doyPokrominn. al satamtaue a 
tasts seined dan atevotee yu at aetetede YOLLidbemegaes bopheLwos 20 
douse fine ead todd tovrwds qaidene el? of vebwy bat titon pen 
‘oils texts eotnad Gua ¢ttidatace end Yo Guudanghe ats a0 fom BLS 
| “guteanial et ot tot gate fh soaks vebmed Dan’ YyReyre?: 2 aw exitamate 
 abengte onli tons xe Trogron — caw oeadanytn odd daly berttvon 4tooeed 
*.Urivately odd to Etivettes ve opdehwend ad? twodtiw heinkehe meh wee 
abl? OF sanetdadtmtd wo eteinde odt Yo walg 2 bekit mele tae bee 30 
wraet gow Jhuw Saetudh od add metsnodiqee doit vikémtaky. sede 
%e dasw ceY dbeasdimts mood had — — — — 
bata ast gORCL g2 Poona we .Tiiteledy dais otasqqe $f enedtue * 
0? boorimarh vex Moki goueold 2e stint efnds’ tenteya moktom mm 
— —— ‘shonin oats — hae — ae —ERXRX 0 era⸗ 
uh ERC ee toedue nw — 
Ai We hii iiaedbiaidld amet amnen een ag 
—— wi hexue dance Sared wid snd eye anon a 
 aa00 a Tisnhat¢ te Seed est te gumbo RoW apt vote « fous oF 
berre davon ety godt ela bute ssousbive wld Y6-Ltn Ys MMate: Melt a take 
sbustes soqu dnedsetes rat dofiver » tosvhh e¢ gndeutox tnd gab kbar at 
ovad ov satd woly one at sxmbbsadimit Te odudAee add te BONE wt EN 
atkxea oils —* — 2t much ow KLnngan side Re smies 
mae * meres E 
add Sittiage af Solorew ade® tot ahuogady rtat a ie 
syithenard oxbian add gathote voght — *.Somnbive eco to etytew Peek tnan 
suoidiw al celdaednes semdamd ald fatt settetsaa-ose —— — 
,,,,,,,, — al otheom 
Say yah veel ak heuTs aweleEaels aduodmon VROmtALs ve 
UdIniaky MoGY wa Wiebe wid Judd’ gonsbweton te antaat mats — 
auiwollot HT aegzrco a sem deadg OO04QR> dodem 


4 M7 






















"The Court: The court further instruets you gentlenen 
ef the jury that unless the plaintiff hav proved by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the diaputed $2,00¢ eheek in a forgery, then 
you must find the iscues for the defendant. The law requires the 
plaintiff te establish his ease by a preponderance or greater weight 
ef the evicence before he can recover. if he bas not so entablished 
hie ense, or if the evidence ia so evenly balanced so that you are 
im doubt or unable to say on whieh side is the preponderanes of the 
evidence, or if the evidence preponderates in favor of the defendant, 
then in either of these enses you shovld find the iaowes for the 
defendant. 

*fe the giving ef each and every one of which the 
Plaintiff by his councel duly exeepted. 

"Whereupon the Court, at the request of counsel fer the 
plaintiff, gave the following imetructions on behalf of the 
Plaintiffs 

“The Court: The court instruets the jury thot the 
burden of proof to show that the ture on the check in the 
gum of $2,000, dated October 24, 191%, which wae paid and churged 
to the plaintiff, if you find that the bank did pay suid cheek 
ere charged the semount thereef to the plaintiif, ia the genuine 
signature of Gerdon C. Thorne, is upon the defendant banke The 
relation of bank an¢ depositor is thet of debter and ercditer. 

Sub ef that relation the law implies a contract on the part of 
the bank to pay the capocitor’s ehecke to the amount ef his 
Gepoait to the persona te whem he orders payment to be madese No 
amount of care te aveid error will protect « bank from liability, 
if it fails te aseevtaim and act upon the genuineness of the 
Gepesitor's signature. In thig cese, if you find from the 
evidence that the State Bank of Chicago paid the amount of the 
Cheek ef $92,909, dated Ortober 29, 1919, and charged said amount 
to the depositor, and if you further find from the evicenee that 
the alleged signature to enid cheek is a forgery, then the 
éefeond ant yank is liable, 


"Te the giving o h and every one of which the 
éefendant, by its counsel, pted.” 


Plaintif¢e states that the aforecsid part of the charge given at his 
instance correctly states the law, but that the eforernid part given 
at the inetance of defendant. contains an ¢rronegus statement of the 
low, and argues that the jury was undoubtedly confused by the iwe 
statements, to the prejudice of plaintiff. it may be coneeded that 
the first aentense of the part of the cherge given at the instanee of 
defendant contained an erronvgus statement of the law, but «e de not 
think that plaintiff ie im « position te complain ef the errers Aule 
8 of the Municipal court of Chicago requires that “objections to the 
giving er refusing of eral instructions te the jury mist be specific 


—— — hang —— fesse s 7* tf gene? 353 hci 
% 





Ysuere on 
| te. te od of stle dehy to yaa oY oldies ted a 
edaadneteb out te Somat wk pe bear vge gM pone bive ons Th te qos 
oat tor oolt Ghoeda vey aGame ereds Yo vedeie ab: 


eetand oe 
: 
ine OOK EOE ILE 


—— ————— tds 
he Pavzpus ait ta 


ad ne anpitouxdand —— wit dee of: 
"gale 8 ost? Be yd ageuxéans swee ‘att | 


a — teat ite ne “ 
ae 















pends asia io at aa ‘atte walt — 


b one 
J eens ——— 


Hae 


— btax Segucds —* 
en? eorebivs ase seeex% Sega 





—n — a em 
‘tats Yo moro gag anny ah —E 
okt 20 moviy, oaxedo,.odd 20. dog. Sinpwieta sdf gets avdede W22 te ae 
ttevka busy Shonewete od dels jot gunk ede ondeda ylivowtes seaetent 
alg. to tuomadate evoomerre se aniatews, diuatepnob: 20.nentuuh eit dee ; 
Ort edt UE Dearie YLbetdvodse amw Yh ws dealt goMgeH bie que 
Sauid habeones og you tl + tilveubalg Ye eolswienmy. ods O98 * 
—X— aevdy oginaia ate ‘Leteme eine eneahendtanhe ap 
| AO ae ow Sed ewnd ode to Saemdads sxavaeTty Me Ronkadina saebaRed 
oliti «warns ealt 20 mbadqnon 08 wwnbghoeg a ab at Yetembake dead Aekete 
vit 09 amokiovtde” dard cottuyes egentd) ke suwoe Loghetaaiteds Yee. 
okttvegs vd fama wal ont of amedsquxsemt Leto to ymtaxer x0 yal 


















1 hokott: ey 


AES gy SUR Rie fe ee pes 


on , —V— —W— Fie AY gat — Mg 4 eed bail * . nea baal 
ies — i he eS be an * ett ae — Cll hie 4 
———— oi Rca bulla 
on ore Ye ———— fos —* 88 
—J ; tees ty i ids wR 
ML 


abe 


ard mict be made inmedintely upom the conclusion ef the charge 
smé before the fury retire,” and this rule ig, of sourses, enforced 
im the ppellinte courte. Many cvses might be cited wherein we 
have enfareed it. Thet coumscl for pleintiff failed to make any 
epecifie objection te the charge -t the gonclusion of the same ie 
appasen? from the recerd. tn fset, the rocoré fails to show that 
any ohjection wae made to it. Had plaimti:f, at the eenclusies 
ef the charge and before the jury retireé, eelled the attentien 
of the court te the errer im the charge, the court, umoubtedy, 
woule have cured it. 

Pheintirf contends thet the court erred in admitting in 
evidences a cheek for 100, deted December SL, 191%, Graven on the 
State Bank of Chicege, payebls te the erder of "Cexeh,"” atel purporting 
to have been cigned by plaintiff, but which plaintiif demied execubings 
Shile the evidenee for defendant tendered to prove that plaintiff 
pigned that check, the evi¢ence fer plaimtif? gusteined his oentene 
tion that he hed met «ligne? it, and therefore if wag not properly 
adwinsible under par. 50, chs Sly Cohil}"s ILL, Revs St. 1932. mn 
the instent eave the parties agree? that a series of cheeks and 
other writimes were made by plaintiff ani might be used ae a etandard 
of eemparicon, avi while it is true that plaintiff sbjeoted to the 
introduction of the check for $100, the signature to this cheek, 
tagether with eleven admitted signatures of plaintif’, were all 
ineluéed in defendant's exhibit eight, which wos an “enlarged 
pictograph of these signatures," and ehich wee admitted in evidence 
without objectieme Later, counsel for plaintiff atated “thet there 
wae we dhdection te the exhibit with the exception of the one sige 
nature,” Vises the eienature te the $100 check. But sounsel did 
net nek that the entire exhibit be withheld from the jury nor dic he 
ask that the signature to the $100 cheek be eliminated from the 
exhibit. In our judgment the admission of the 100 check did not 


“agit sale * —ER ———— son, $4 boat Da 
| — —— ot wire aa ne tm wot — Sas 
= ate nherorty waaay: ate woaae ot Mt * — DD ———— ‘ 

Spa eat 68 GoEtam UAL at fay fn eke dE baptotne ona 
2% 4 ends ott Ye webeulyaon ode ‘ga! va et ot ——— a * 
Sold wads P chin? orders ede — tS ** at moze. a nee ee 
Hansiionay at Je (YUN ittats walt” at * initia iw gt tas 
wok todas wig bet fae Y shestere eam, att —* — warned 


















at —— at ei — J 
weld to eine Ate ate * : we ito 0S 8,3 
gubrrogend Mie "Lunar 26 ante. * ots mg atase het 
—— sotto. Vi autala aotite dud « * dom ke ‘ d * mats 


—— Sorntr⸗ sae lone tats — — ‘ 
Wreasag ton gan ef euctwredt beee att —— ton Bait ‘eet Seat pois 
“ — 082 veel htt ot Lita ote ah vow: ‘ioe al —— 
hs adontis Te etter © feet Seems Robt bite vi “nant dd 
frenteede #94 Dees od oofste dees ee eruser — gutiie 
gydoosia a28? of wedarmle ads — te te 








somedi ve shy oot tke nse ie taber alr “papa i mate ante 36 t 
ened? taut” hodetu VRsvubAte Ko? Lonmian «ronal > aot seatae' 
wgle omy af 30 ROkogeuns ast Bbw Stebebie ond GF Weltosted om wow ‘ 
bh Loatwen $u8 — 
ext S2o xox Yul od wout afadee he od the tees outtew ott tet fas tom 

od? mx? bedaniatio ed docx — ee — 
fot ALD Aseacio COLE auld Yo mehentmbs ond dapamdut awe Bl tise 








-fe 
prejudice plaintiff. Witnesses for defendant testified thet 
if that cheek were entirely eliminated from consideration they 
would still insist that the person whe wrote the other "standard 
gemine signatures" wrote the signature on the check for $2,000. 
We entirely agree with their conclusion in that regard. When 
ali of tne evidence that plaintiff eemeedes ig competent ia 
carefully conaidered in the light of the surprising testimony 
of plaintiff, we are wable to see how a jury could Jusctly find 
a verdict for plaintifr. 

The judgment of the Municipal court of Chiesgo is 


aifirmed. 
APPIREE De 


Gridley and ‘ullivan, JJ+, concure 





7) porttoans —E “ss senuenthy | or a 24 
yout sata ore btenes mort batashat.ts visuitue oxo y Aoodto tasid *4 


_tadnndo” aide wt Pow oute woxrog oft fault tainnt Kihde Sine 
_ 99208 wk Hoody sds me orndanpla ot? odor “aeritanyis extuneg 





radi 9 remgox tosis ez metanfenss ehoas sithe “otBA coutins ev 


et dnasoques a anbenage Titdmtede test sonebhyo ot “te ite 


RD Ble a, 
“aiomt ses patbohrquwe er oda ods at doxedtamee y 


ay f 










pene 


— ee * see 


od th — 








wlan ale nee 
* ai x4 tee; 9 
+ — tue’ a ieee 
: J. * oa: 
? ty ' Peete ee See 
' 
* — J ——— 
* 1 Se ee ER NES GM bok RG ae Bao Ket Pay 
i 
ty 
iy ee 4 see 
P é P * RPE * 
i oats 
rt ie ig’ — hug ie 
ae sy yee the — 
¢ é — eet ie Sanh 3 . * * ome: x i 
: AE oe a eee ie ‘tee 
% 42! 
oe we \ ey a Pal ty | apes Panis $, shite fr niet as * —59 
— ROS Re oh wie ue 
| 4 rs 
ase & bd doe . r ut Ve i 
ay Tet pheleea 5 — Oo Ree OLS aaa ga gem Ft sa 
wit cara a eed — ata, 
i Bins * ‘i * — 
— pe 5 iyi, Bees we oe ela 





36359 


/ 


I — 
MUNICIPAL cobRt | ii 


Fs 
* 


OF CHIGAGO, i ; 


x 


PRED A, SPANDAU, 
Appell ve, 


——— — 





v. 


RALPH GARAZZA, 
Appellant. 


270 1.A. 62°77 


WR, PRESIDING JUSTICE SUANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE Count, 


¥Yred A. Spandau, piaintifY, om Kareh 14, 1932, filed ao 
distress warrant against Raiph Uaraasza, defendant, in whieh it was 
alleged that the sum of $286 was due on Mareh 1, 1932, for rent of 
the premises knewn as the ground fleer store, 70 Seuth Dearborn 
atreet, desised to defendant by plaintiff, The ease was tried by 
the eourt, whe found “the isgue as to the right of plaintiff te 
levy the dietress warrant in this cause sad as io the morite of 
the action against ithe defendant Aglph Carazgza and assesses the 
plaintiff's — at the sum of $255." Judgment wae entered 
upen the finding ond defendant prayed an appeal. An appeal bond 
Was approved and filed. Defendant was allewed slaty daye in rhich 
to file a bill of exceptions but none was ever filed and we have 
before us omly the commen law record. 

Defendant hae raised several vententions, a1 ef which are 
of the moet technicsl character, 

Defendant contends that the distress warrant shows one 
name and the suemens or precese another, and that such variance is 
fatal. the record fails te show that defendant raised the question 
of the alleged variance, It appears that the distress warrant and 
the judgeent order designate defendant by tne name of Aalph Carazza, 
while the summons in distress and the return to the same designate 
defendant as Kalph J. Carazsze. the record sieves that the right 
defendant was served, that he appeared in the proceedings in person 





; ay page ee ey a 
a inet uel 88Ok .f ote ne enh sew ees te * * basta —— 


EG ee SES I nati * 
srodsend not oor il west?” bower “| 






ow? ea ®. 
eS bodss naw saan edt Wisatede YW tachan teh oF beataeh , * . 
et Yinealete ‘Yo tight ond of as exnad ott” bawo?d ow \ oe — 
















te ud ison nat ee ec bug eaues ald? at goeetew saonte a ty eve. ' . 
gt eosseeen ban annatad sig Lae Fic bi to wits “daadaya / ' lion 3 it —9* 
hexesen awe tommybes "8004 te 4 ett te seyaaud a — bat i oS 
boot iaegge ah sfarqge ma deyotg shabmIoh han gathalt odf aoge 


sie 8 atv ak eyeh ysxi» hewolie saw cia ae ha oteo S20 howe bevotags aon 
erst @w baw beth? seve saw eags gad anoisquane te ahia a eit oo 
sbsooey Wel aomaco ot vine aw * tet 
ots dotdw to L4e ,xwotJassney Lexemd besten sad saabas ted — ce 
tadowtasio fan hasioot doom 7“ ou 
eno awasde snetise eusttealh oat tase Sdaeduas ee ae ie . 
at eonaliey dows tas? ban ,xediona aneoerg to mmomun Od baa saat 
a boone add Soahat taabue'teb dads wade of aite? brepet ost “4 ‘ 
| “hee ferctaw agowters od asia steenge nu sonaalter henetia a 
(AtNHIE? Kiqdal Lo oma ont YS Inabae'teh etangheod robre Samm bot eae 
stonglas one ost OF oxntot oxtt bas eeottedh at ‘enomowe ont *. it 
) trigh aid Sad aw Osis mee·a ont — * * a Bu toh 

















ete 


and by attorney and that he failed to raiee in ony apt way the 


question of the alleged misnomer, In 1, ©. HR. RK. Co, vy, 
Hasenwinkle, 232 Ihl. 224, 223, the court said; 


“Sq far as the error in the middle initial is concerned, 
the law is that a middle letter is no part of the — Posh an 
individual, and if it is ged ben, | SE th inserted or erroneous, 
it makes no difference. € @ aw recognizes —** one 
Christian name, and a middle initial may be dropped or resumed 
or shanged at ang 9° Its lohan or absence or difference 
af toute —— (Gross v. Villages of Gressdale, 177 121. 248; 

, : Italics oure,) 





The present contention is witheut the slightest merit, 

Defendant contends that the distress warrant if the decla- 
ration in the case and that it “is defective and ineufficient 
inaemuch ae it faile to show to whom and where it was served ***, 
Service of distress warrant must be made on the party named as 
defendant, or tenant, or to any party authorized by law. The 
amount claimed by appellee in his slleged distreas warrent was fer 
rest ef a store and service should be made sither to the party 
himeelf or to any other party who is in possession or contrel of 
the premises in which the property restrained is lecated.” Dee. 
fendant does net gentend that he di¢ not receive a copy of the 
distress warrant. In fact, as we have heretefoere stated, he ape 
peared in person and by couneel and teok part in tie entire pre- 
ceedings. The distress warrant served bim witha notice of hia right 
to file a achedule of a11 of nic property, and to claim any exemp- 
tions to which he might deem himself entitied. The rederd fails 
to shew that there was « sule of the property seized, or that 
defendant scheduled and claimed exemptions at any time, or that 
defendant has been damaged or deprived of any of hie rights. De- 
fendant has seen fit to state, in hie brief, that the property 
involved in the instant ease has been replevied, in another action, . 
by him and he offere to submit to this court the reeord in the 
alleged replevin case, and he argues that the alleged replevin suit 


ass wr fge qu ak andor of Setter ed tadt. how wortode et baw 
ax ath Bb gk si, temoneia hogotia eat to aod aAs aur 
thias Stason ole os ale 40S .££% S68 ,pSinkeneask 


denies oi doithus oibbin oc? ied ‘Soxae oft en tat OB" 9 
aa to samen adt te dtay et af tettel ofbhim a taste al wok oat 


Rupesnsse te eee ati weak ig ai ¢i t2 bee ,tawbivibat 
aio tad aeningens: wel agemoo « ——— — neces A 
houses to beqgets od yom Loseiol * ai mooi fa 


apart Tthh te — +0 row; ® “3 
—— — myo 
, | three guntdadia ott suastt tw at —“ —— a 

<eLoob one of dnectaw sassiels edt tnnd bas dane faabao'ted sony thas 
: say ka PY Koad bas ovtooe'ton ek” tk fadt bus eaeo ade at otter 
wes bavisa ame oh eteiw baw sociw os wos od Bfigt i. 24 Houmas — 
⸗⸗ heann xaxs ad? ao ehsm od temm sacrie as au ds Ib te orm. 

ext mal yd Gealtottes ytteq Yes oF tH staenet 80, staat 
tot sew dnetie¥ pwontet Aepetia eid ad vo Lhouge ye boats! 


yiteq ont ot suit te —D of bisede ooiviea haa erota, a x pee 


* — — 
—— eH 


















ta kottace To nelneorrog al ot qaw ytteg todd o re, at <0 ‘Mosuld 
owt * .betsook of beoniwataot ¥ereqete oi? sgddw at aoaluatg ens 





ost Yo yqoo @ evieoss som S26 aa dasid bagdaee tom asoh tachaat 

“qe od ,fetate etototered ovad ow ae stom al simettaw esette £6 
«org oxitne ot al dueq dead haw —— qo bax aoateg 44 —ER 
‘Styte oie ‘te olsen activ mbes —— Phen ew —R& ont * aaat hong 
-queme ye ofeto of bas ,Ysteqete sid te Lia to odubedon @ efht of 
atte htobent ont heltigne heowkd sane Sig baw aa Hoksw ot amg ts 9 

: aa xe henten xcr vgoaa ods ‘to olan * Rew oxedts tort woul ot 

) - tesig x6 — yanks Meal Se anots xoxo bemtaLo boa hotuberios teabaeted 
— — wit To Yas to hevinged te Boganab aood sai Soahas teh 
| : utteqot ost tosis te tad eid mk ,odade of FhY noon aad faeheey, 
| Malton ꝛond oua al bo vo Leen neod san enna saatent eat aa Sorfoval 3 
suit at brosen a? ⸗axues obi? oF huge od exonte ad baw aks xd 

4* alveleet hogeiie off tact eeugta od baa ,onae aitve Seon — 





254 


deprived the court of all jurisdiction to determine any issue in 
the instant case, The record ia entirely silent as to the slleged 
replevin suit, but if it showed euch mi action and that the per- 
sonal property involved in the instant proceedings had been ree 
plevied, such fact would net deprive the court of all Jurisdiction 
in the instant case, ae defendant argues, 

The judgment erder in the instant case shews that defendant 
was before the court in person and by counsel, that the cause came 
on in regular course for trial and that the court hear’ the evie 
dence and the arguments of counsel before rendering jJudyment. 
Defoniant, in so far as the record discloses, hae hud « fair ond 
impartisl trial, and the judgment of the Kunicipsi court of Chicage 
will be affirmed, 

AVFIRKAD, 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJ,, concur, 


ak oxaak yan oniorwdoh of aolésiBelaut he te aveo" edt povixaes | 

ope tin eit oF bx” duo ite yfexkane Wk teases BHT Leman tnovent eae 

~t0g edt fadt bas maltese as doua hewode 92 22 gud neve mewedeet 
-or ased hast ayatbesoerg siwtual pit wt ee 


if WE. eres a 


notte iva iavi fa: te vines ony ovens em Pianow Pout Kose, 


initial aianate te nal (vimm —— 
—E— east endian sao Fath ont ak toby Laren ——— a 
omen enue 90 tadd ,ioonues ys has moexeg al —— eas ae 
ahve ast? timed t1meo odd — bia falxe rot sorwoo meinen at no 
sGooagbul, gairebaet ereted leeavee Lo le iteed Lala oe = 
tne whet # busi and ,aameigalh breget eat oo whe oo ‘ab Saabae 


Ea a & Lay, tahraac — 
ogscddd Io suse, ieqtotauk edd to taemdet ody b bas _pietea tat abet 


eRe MS ms ge Say RS fee * nual 


Go Ce Se ee oak ae eS 


okey : gE rue hae *D ——— * * 














Mog ae 


— OEEVSEAS Tee ssaer | ro {8 ee te 
stare “en mae R Lie en * 
at AG 

(a eu ray we chew ot seplewne pale 

oes Sarthe nig a eet ae OR ee it 

ORR OPE ae ROR : ce Pet Meee’ Aen Ao ek OR uf a ae aoe we ue he iis ¥ 
Hila ET Ay gal —— 
7: Pee Set ch REE ew i 
HRiAS LT aed aR Ls Stat Wie Mea gone Ruth Bae mil alin ator ee wanes * 
Tae Ge Bat Pind — rig teen ct * 
Bs F * By whe ee fembede fee — ids shay — ety 
, J 

AR en th okt Nana aa 8 So By i 
— iS PREY * Woy G2 ie Fae ha — * —— * an 
od 90 Tke aah Beas me ge : : 
ae * 





Pines © ‘ CRF 2a ‘ [wast aew ota 2 * Perry ePaas Hew J Chega 









x b ‘ 
* 
AUN uarrucus, ‘ea 
Appellee, | 
Ve ’ | 

¥. FRAZIER JSLKR, APPRAL FROM SUPERIOR 


ALEXANDER Me MAIN 
Oe He RIGGS, SIUMEY Se 
WORMERR, JOHN Js MOORE, COURT OF COOK GoUNTY. 
VICTOR Ge PARADIGN, GEORGE 


as FRAGIUR JELKE & GOs, 2<0 1A. Gon 
WRe PRESIDING JUSTICE SCANLAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff sued defendants in ascumpsit. A jury returned 
a verdict finding the iseues for plaintiff and sasseeoimg her damages 
at the sum of £1,820. Judgment was entered upon the verdict and 
defendants have appealede 

The deeleration consisted of the common countas Defendants 
filed the plea of the general issue. 

Defendants are steck brokers, and prior te September 24, 
1929, plaintiff's som, Charles Matthews, had an account with theme 
Om or about the last mentioned date plaintiff went to the office of 
defendants and ordered one of the latter's employees to purchase 59 
shares of Middle “est Utilities steek on margin and she hended te 
the employee a $1,000 bend to be used as collateral. ‘he claimed 
that she told the employee that she wae purchasing the atock and 
that she did not want her son to know of the traneaction as he 
had told her not make any investments while he was out of the 
city, Plaintiff testified that her som, at the time in question, 
Was about twenty-two years of age and had been going to school 
until September, 19293 that he Lived with her, and that she and 
her son had “a joint box at the bank." Defendants claimed that 





1 a * ti % 
— 7 ™ bi gy 
fr | *R a 
/ LN 
§ ¢ * 
OE EMG he RRS 






qutancu Mode tAmecs 


beep. AI ore” 


POO ME NO WOTAIEO ANT aacavauat — sorta — ste ok 
iy Ve J ey. 


Seuinitn Wad A athequnene th ebnbavbeh heat! — ae 
avpomes “ed pitaggase bine *theakele 78% aeveel oft gated totorew 
hue folocey oft woqe beteso8 gaw deeomplalt aa 








Ginehuwrted setnwoo moxmwo od 20 bodatemoe tokdwxstond efT 
sonnel Loxeneg off Bo wakg af? dott? 

oft updimedged of xokxg baw gatedoxd toga ore edasbmotwe 
. sted Mdkw droves mo back gowediddek wokual qrme at Ptbemtalg «nek 
‘Ww wok od? OF duow W2Rdwtaly Oded bomoténom deol odd duede Te m0 
G8 seattomy of nevyolqme a xetied of? to ono boxsbto bes adnebasteb 
O¢ bodwud ade tee igre wo dooda ea2sLLhat goal ofbnkM te uocade 
boutato edt siowetelioe ex bean od od band 000,43 » voyedgmo odd 
hee foods ont pitbanctoug exw ore dou? soyodgmo aut? bhod onle tadt 
Qs eo totsocenet? est Yo wom of soa tod dmaw dom bLb oda sastt 
etd Yo duo on es OLlae odnomtavent wre eslem tom cod Led bad 
stoltwoup mt vatkd odd ta gine tos dnd? HetRheend Wkentel vyshs 
Leones of pmtog weed bat haw ogs Yo * 
hoes vote toss bam qvest Mote bovbl om taskd {ORCL yrodwodqos Shem 
. Sete bemielo *atfmed off f2 cod datat ioe als anil i 














“20 


plaintiff gave specific orders that the transaction was to be 
eurried in the secount of her sony “that she wanted - she told 

me that she wanted a11 in her son's account, because it was all 

her money anyways Ker son had never worked except odd jobs, and 
hed no money. It all Belonged to her anyway." The son testified 
that the bonés that were put up as collateral belonged to his 
father's extates that the father had left no will and the cutate 
had never been prebated. uring his examination the following 
ecourreds “Mr. Bourlend (attorney for defendants): Whose bonds 
were they, Mr. Matthews? A. Well, they would be - practiceliy, if 
you want to call it, a partnerehip, perhapse Ge ‘hat partnership? 
A» Setween my mother ond myself. ¢. The bonds had been kept in 
a joint box, had they, in the Piret Wational Bank Building? Ae 
Yeas sires" it if « matter of comzon knowledge that the stock 
merket had a very severe decline in the fall ef 1929. mn Ceteber 
24, 1929, defendents required further collateral and Plaintir¢e left 
with them an additional $1,000 bend. Ghe testified thet she never 
reecived a receipt for either of the bends. Defendants introduced 
carbon copies of the receipts given for the twe bends. Kach 
recites that defendants reecived the bond from Charles Matthews. 
sfter Cetober 24, 192%, the market continued te decline and defende 
antes sent notices to Charles Matthews te bring in additional margin. 
Receiving ne word from him they sold, on October 31, 1929, one of 
the bonds fer $691.17, whieh waw the hichest and best price that 
could be secured at the time om the markets and on November 4, 1929, 
they sold the other bond for $906.83, which was also the highest 
and best price that could then be obtained. After the sale of 

the two bonds cefendants sent two cheeks to Charles Matthews, one 
for $68.77 and the other for $46. ‘he first cheek represented 

the balance of his account with defendants, and the sccond represented 


ed ef eaw mohinoanet? od? sad arehte oitioegs oveg Tritnlalg 
ifo2 one ~ bedanw opts decid” gage xed to seweson edt ot deletes” 
fia aw 32 oasesed gémudeos e'mee xed mi Lia bodmew gig tals om 
bum gadol, $60 Jqvoxe bedtee coven hel woe <oit —E omen tod 
bolthteod non vat ".yswyn xed od bopaeted ike of syomen on hed 
abst of bogmofod Lexideifes on qu dmq otow oat —— 
otagon ould nee LLiw om gt0K das worltat opft Baste isgades o toita 
gaiwolto’ ad? motiantaaxe aid gutwi sbedpdory mood orem aR 4 
arued seat *(adnabme tod 20% yortosse) banked «ait phew ° 
| tt eulfoottonsg ~ od kato wots gg ile oA — —— ae cat 
Pe dete cond tag Sate * ouqadtong L  ereueramston, & eff thas od tnaw * 
—— ad — bos ostdom om avawded | 
+A Cyt batunn sina Lee des Seatt wets wt qed? teal axed satel 3 
deote ait Sota egdoLrem! comme ho tedden a of #1... exe gat 
weddein0 m0 .PROL Yo Lint ois mi ombinod sores yrew a pd Soutam 
Piel Vulsmlaly bm Leredel ioe rotitast bortapes sdmabaeted 92EL «dS 
 wevod efe gett bostigeed aff «baod OU, L4 Lonohts doe. aa mod? ddiw 
bvowborsnl atuabrete. sabsed eld te werldto «et. oqesoero, oovisoet 
ost aabaod ews otf 103 eerie aégioans att Yo eviqos — 
oatwadteall. aplzed®. ————⏑oo—,————————————— {ove 
shaoten baa ontfoeh od bemakinoo Sovtom odd e@SBL 4dS xodeded tots 
whigrem Lonolsthba mt pakré of ewedsdall sekuedd. of egotton suse edae 
be one g82OL git xedotoo no gbhen yom? mid mex) beow om paivieoel 
fats patrq teed dre Peocintst oot aow wo tate, eVhe£08% cot ahuod ond 
egat 4% todmovek mo has g¢odzem off ne oats oxide docween ed Diuoo 
Geoitnis ad onke gow siniste 46848006 rot duod tue ody bLow yess 
Yo ofon oft aott «bendatde of nods hives galt ookxq #eod bas 
Oko atwsdéFak ootity of wlocsio ows tnea edtohseteb abned ows oad 
padnone tyes Aoede Soxkt wit 824 tok D—— ou⸗ bos TTebad x02 
botwenemges bxooon oi? bas gudachnoted Assw gmwonee gtd Lo eamntns. vel 

















wt tera. a el ae ee ee 


“te 


payment for two interest coupons on two other bends which he had 
previously deposited with defendants. Charles Matthews admitted 
receiving both of these checks and that he understood that the one 
for $68.77 was for the balance of his account and the other for 
the payment ef the two coupons. He eashed both checks and ree 
tained the moneys Plaintiff cleimed that the two bonds were sold 
without her knowledge or consent and without due notice te her, 
that she did mot read the letters thet had been sent to her son 
which called for additional margin, and thet she wes not aware that 
the bonds had been sold until her son notified her of thit fact 
avout November 1, 1929. 

Defendante have raised anc argued nine pointe in suppert 
of their centention thot the judgment should be reversed. In the 
view that we have taken of this appenl it is neecsvery fer us to 
concicer but onee 

Defendants contend that the verciet is contrary te the 
manifest weight of the evicence. Im considering this contention 
we have read the entire evidenee adduced upon the trial and after 
a very careful consideration of the some we have reached the con- 
@lusion that the contention ef defendants is o meritorious one. 
ig this case may be tried again we refrain from amalyxing and 
commenting upon the facts and cireumstances in evidence, 

The judgment of the Superior court of Cook county is 
reversed and the cause ig remanded 

REVSRSED AND RUMANIEDe 


Gridley and Sullivan, JJ., concurs 





bot tims — —— pentane * — vanes 
ono on? tas? doede tebe at dats oe exoaso seas ‘te deed vetytooes 
_ wee teat ote bun teweogs abd Yo epnated edt xa new Ye8D). x0% 
0% bun eoode Kiet beduco GH  esepquos gua ail? To tmemyeg ¢ 
‘nkeo. erew ahaod owt oste tails wom ake Viddnielt eee ot * 
Arie og va von ue —RR ates dusanes (te ageedegel 
‘Sew “orl 08 finwe ne0d nd St ons804 ad Sons fon O28 ee dat 
aot oume ton ase ane tof? ne qatgaam Lonstatobe wet Belted sotstw 











* —J 
font | she to 0a monitaos moe ost Kise kos noe ba ehwod oat 





“dregne at eéatog onthe — ama beaker ovat néeabao et ee 
“etd a shewtover 96 bdssodta oosmaber, edt — 2 sobsusdaoe xia? * ‘we 
ed on xo Vissasoen of * t Leogys eia⸗ “19 nad ovat ov dash maby 
a da 
“edd ad qeotenes at tetoioy wad saad oussaos strabas ted 


+ a 2 aT 


| tot eneteoe ates ank re biota ak + enmondyo ests * —— eoset⸗ 
“wethe ⸗ od nog hooubhs oaebive extime old barn ovat 
enge ould budans avast o oma oie 0 sedtor dame ——* 


+ong eueliedizem « 4 adunoers rob * Hei deen eats bored ante | 
bas gabayienn mov? au arie · ow mhene rr⸗ ————— 
r seouhive od woonatama tte bow odes ona Lato srk 


; ae an 
at Yonwos seed Yo #xueo xalroqui ads 10 Suomghul sft 


: aw oan ed eteunt « 





— 
» Roe ee 


* 



















—— 3 orxen a ie 
‘ Pare } : ce : : Peo ‘ab ,. yon 
| = x 
AA v oy 
3 Aca ; ea Saat ) 4 ie co aH ees to : 
— os. jaot. celta, ale, Skew nent 
} _emonne, 0 ee8% qmoybitie, bro } | 
etek wheel gerd and ¥ 
ri e4% tyes tort all + Bok woh qomthe ote Bow Pte ee gem © 
apt ere aa qotuetestoh aile tuppran ef. oo. poeta oe 





Sf \ 
- } 
1 


j 
ALBERT F, KELHZY and 0) ' 
HARAINGT SAYRER KEEHEY, 
Plaintiffs in Error, 


Va 


MILO 0. RICHARD and 
ALVINA REIGHARD, 


tintin | 2701468 


ERROB To uUHICIPAL 
GOUKT OF CHIC/AGG. 


MRe FUGTICH GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION GF TAX couRT. 


In a Ziret class aetion im agsumpsit for demages for 
breach by defendants of a written contract, there was a trial 
without a jury in June, 1952, revulting im the court finding 
the issues against plaintiffs and entering judgment againeat them 
fer ecate. Sy thie writ of error they seek te reverse the 
jadgment — 

Im plaintiffs’ statement of claim, filec April 1S, 1932, 
they alieged thet pursuant te the terms of « written contract, dated 
December 14, 1929 (copy atteched and mace a part of the statement) 
@efenéants agreed to purchase of them certain impreved Chicage real 
estate (describing it) that by the contract defendants agreed to 
pay for the premises the total cum of 99,100, “by asowsing a $4,500 
first mortgage then upon the premises and by the payment of the sum 
of $4,506, in monthly imatallments of $70 or more, commencing January 
15, 1950, and continuing thereafter om the 15th day of euch ame every 
Ronth succecding, until the entire balance remaining om the principal 
sum should be paid with interest thereon at the rete of 6 per cent per 
anuumg” that thereafter and until and including December 15, 1931, 
éefondanta made the required monthly paymentas that on January 159 
1932, they failed te pay the installment then due, anc else there= 
after failed to pay the installments due on Februery 15th ané Mareh 


—* 






— 2 — on span 
— on denn 19 TOD. 


J A. Gi OS: 


‘ —— ms * ROLE Id * — ——— "ed — 





_ Set segemsd tot — mt antdos saeto” seni vee “a 
Saber & sav ered adoowtnos meathce’ @ To aoasbnite iin 
| atte ven ea in iow ca ait ‘eo i tt 
qs dectege twomghwt, yetxesue tea « Kervtbaty” ‘tonnage —D 
ots satevox o¢ Accs yous agake te oie tte bauble yy 


bas rarity tanta 

















tetad ctoectnon ster 8 te saod Md OF — 





— —DDD,————— —*& ei 
of Destyn atinbavteds foatiaes exh yeh dard an att 
ooe. bs a pitts EE" 4000, 08 0 ee Loree edt ede hited: oat COR" 

sare Osis Yo —— oad yt bom samt wt woe oH? 283, 208 . 
Wawel gatomsumes yoxom xo OYE te: udebedtatend “eaten yoo —* * 









mq deme req 9 te oor sd? sm mosredtth: —— —— * —* * : a 
eSt@L g&i —— gutiufont Mme Livan ar tert te it ; 7 . 
off Utena’ no tant? tednomgog. ka — hentia | 


We os ee Shae —— 
oe seee 


<r bela Sax «900 teosks tunatistons i od * bic 








LSthy 1952; that in Jnnmeary, 1952, defendents, then in posnesr ion, 
moved out and sbendoned the premiveng thet in January, 1932, the 
market value thereof waa 0792003 thet there was psysble on the cen- 
tract the sum of $8,286.02; that plaintiffs “were thereby demeged 
to the extent of $99¢.925" thet they ineurred other damages “by 
reauon of defendants’ failure to carry eut said contract of purchases* 
that they paid out $381.54 for general teaxea, 9112-99 fer a «<peetal 
agsesemont, and 9217.15 fer “renewal ef said firet mortgage whieh had 
been aswumec by defendanteay” and that the total domages suffered by 
plaintiffs are $1708.32. 

tm defendants’ affidavit of merita they alleged as a 
defense that the contract of December lig 192%, “wae forfeited by 
plaintiffs, and thet by ite terme the payments made on it by defende 
ants were, az a result of ssid forfeiture, accepted by plaintiffs in 
natisfetion and Liquidation of a1] camaget, if any, euctained by 
them.” And defendants denied that the market velue of the premises 
in January, 10529 eas, a5 alleged, $7,290, and stated thet at that 
time the market value waa in exeess of said mma. ‘nd cefendants 
further demie¢ that plaintiffs sufferec domages im the wum of | 
Sl7OG.51, or im any sums 

On the triel plaintiffs introduced in evicenee the son- 
tract, and eelied as witnesses Mile G. Reichard, one of the dofend- 
ants, (under section 33 of the mumicipal court set), and Lealie - 
Neuen, an agent of plaintiffe. I is previded in the contract 
(‘which ie on a printed form, in use by Albert F. Keeney as a 
“Realtor,” end filled im with typeeriting) that if dofendants 
(designated es purchasers) shall firet make the paynents and perform 
their agreements thereinafiter mentioned, plaintifie (designated as 
venders) “vill comvey and asoure to the purchasers, im fee simples 
cleaxy of all enewsbrances except as hereinafter etated, by = geod 
and gufficient warranty deed,” the premises in question, subjects 


— a F 


sseolseeragg m2 mete .udmabastsh ,RSGL gycummnt at tacts pa A⸗a 
att gS60L qyramnel nt Jed? geegtanrg of? Somoiuexds Sue aus beveut 
<iie odd we SLdayng sew Onods gold {ORTS enw Yeavodd oufey — 
yforants stew’ a¥eiiwiedsg sade (8€.068,6$ Yo sats od9, feat... 
“ad” wogeumh tedte demons Yor? Jatt "ySe. 9088 Te smodae oft eo 
*qouatomwg ke foautmoy Alan Ine yxxao of wimkhet ‘adaatee tad te means 
fatqeqn « 78% O8.SLLG guoxet Lotoneg uot aoe £854 te bie Tae. dni: P| 
had dodde oyegttom #oiiY btas Yo Lowen" 19 Re TLOd dile «ta unvoan 
ue boscntare cogeach Latet add god bam “gudas beets w ⸗ * 
— D — — —— at ee a 
A ao bopsite Yet edtiom te ¢lvebhite ‘aénabaated ot 
UW dotietret naw" .@S0L ghi radmeee Yo gontdaes ene tae — 
aboot YF 6i no obam asneayey ens aucet ats yo fortd dye gg tBh. — 
at wkEidntalg yf hotjwoon otsietu? Liew Le u — 
W dominos . yin Th goegamed Ate te uoldekbsplt one woke Ratton 
aselmeny sid to exfey tomtom oft Josts bateeb etandustsd bma Sema. 
tat? Sa fad? Sedede des QRS TS gdagelia we goer eSOCL a ytanaet at 
Sitandcetos ot: — amie bine Ye en Sah Saar a, SR RE Nt 
“fo mes cots ml eogemeh ovrs ties —— — ita: be 
wane Sp tananive i 
~baoleb etd To ano ghtufvlet .0 aff aomeomthw ma Selfee 4 * ii shi 
+8 ghheol tna q(toe t2uoo Logtotemm wit Ye 24 mobtcon toneu) qadaw 
 eettues off mb aebbyosy at of) +s¥itimtety Yo tuoge ne gentoo 
A oe Yomeel of Pred yd east eae? brtmta ated tie) 
atachawte? t2 taste (gatetewagyd eltde at SOLEES bes | 
aeohitg bas admasyey ols eae Seat? Shade — * 
as dotanatase) Aidatasg Sonoisase me 7 rlseſt 
selgnia 992 al yattusdo nig ed 0% @made ton worms bes iwebawy: 
boog 2 YS ededose. wPendowd eo sqvaze. to Ske | * 
sos dis .mottesup mt wostmeay ot — meret nis Sas 












re, 























“30 


inter aliny to “all taxes and special assessments, assumed by the 
purchesers" and a “trust deed, recorded as document Hoe 9,534,463, 
to secure an indebtedness of 949500) due om or about Jan. 15, 1932, 
with interest at 6 per cent." ind the purchasers (defendants) agreed 
to pay to the vendors (plaintiffs), at the Chiesgo office of Albert 
Fe Keeney, “as the purchase price of sxid real estate, the sum of 
$9,000 in the manner following: $4500, by ancsuming and agreeing to 
pay the encumbrance now on gaid real estate, with interest thereon 
as im said mortgage provided, and the sum of $4500 in the manner 
following: $70 on the execution of this contract, receipt of which 
is hereby acknowledged, and the remainder us follows! $7, or mores 
monthly, commencing January 15,9 1950, and continuime thereafter on 
the lth day of esch and every month succeeding until the entire 
balance remaining on the principal sum hee been paid in full,” ete. 
And the purchasers further agreed to pay all taxea payable in 1928 
and subsequent years and all special —— levied or to be 
levied. <A material paragraph of the agreement is as follewes 
essence of this” Rim nee y Bening yy — ehaneate tend that 
in case of the failure of sald purchasers (defendants) to make 


any of said payments, or perform amy of the agreements on their 
pert in this contract made and entered into, thie contract shall, 


t option of enid VERE OF 8 (plaintiffs), be forfeited and ter- 
— such 5 we retained by said vendors in 
a 26 263 aa hs 2%. a EY 3 



























the premises aforesaid." 











aid vendors 
possession of «all 
On the back of the contract are indorsenente showing 

that about the middle of each month, fer two years from January 
16, 1930, and until December 1lé, 1931, inclusive, defendants 
regulsrly made the stipulated monthly payment: of $70; that a part 
of each payment ens credited te interest sccount and the dolanee 
te principal accountg that the payments on secount of principal, 
including the original payment of $70 when the contrect wos 


executed, agcregated about $720; and that the total of «11 pay- 





rtd qd between seduemaeaus Letvoqe dete abiked Lhe" of abs 
q6dd, 26Te 0 Henmes on botrours yhoed dewte* « bite "ates nelovixd 
MRE (OE aaah fixes xo ne oud 4008_bE Ye svoudstdoind fa Hulewe 6d 
poonye (ndnctuvtes) exonateme ede bat “dees “og D da deoretat dite 
dted£\ vo ort Ye Saver wld te ylavtivmialg) exobmey etd oF Yoq 08 
Ro mse wid yodides Leet bien Yo eedty veatiomy bay we” yyenoet 6% 
ed YRtvorye ons gaiewene yt 4008S) synbwortot roman adé ab 000, A 
Howiad? daeredis doiw yedadno Taet thee so wou gomntdintons odd yng 
one old w OOGD) Te ants nds bat «boniwony opagtraat Bion at Wn 
Holte te tqgtecex ytootéeee widd te aelesosre —* te oe agit volt 
aetom te ,0VE sawolict as tehatvwy off bus » bogbotwo done ak 
tie tod'teotuld gulentinoe Bue OUOK .Of qreumnt Eniomemees 4y as i 
| Pukdime ons Leone gelbsovoin dsaom Guiwy bra Hove Te Yad MOE bed 
sede “Gilet at blog eed ean wm res — —— 
ef Of Xe belveL editvmesens Letouge Ife bas exiey tnenjondin Bam 
pero lok am ad — — ——— ————— —XR 
tid te ed Lhuste ent tate towkye ge Greet ott valth 
dels bun gt cnds cmnbghiaee and Ain tae Goa ; te sone: 
odax 03 (edauboote®) ateaatioeeg Alan to: 
tied? mo eéneneoxne eff? te yes are tusqg «6 
siimia doatimoo sid? ,oint boredae bee Oban 
—* bate —— vx e(oxeient tebuoy 
‘ " ees ee — 2* ——— ry ah 


nM SRP oes BRST SL RAS LD SF Ge 





























—— —— * iis "301 nines 
aitwoela nSavmea se oat ora douttaon of? Yo dead aid 00 ao 


9 We Seep. 

“Wrawaa’ sox? nee owe 0% save Ao Ste ae 
sina dan tod — autont teet gd soso! Lita bas 4080, 

ri p SS A 7 


oraq a fosts 10% to devon sigan beosatuat se oma saa 7 ae 
vontelad edé eta seuanen tenrednt 02 bedkoony aa | 


FVM PMN asd Te ad ay NAG 


tagtont eq te ——— an —— ons saat tievoo0e 1 








weet Le te Lato wd “tad ne — —32 
* al a iris hs sueperag Sai 


42 


mente made to plaintiffs was ever $1760, 

Tt appears from the testimony of plaintiffs! witnesses 
that defendonts moved out of the prumises eurly in January, 1935243 
that up to thet time they had made all required monthly payments to 
Plaintiffs, but had mot paid some of the acerued taxes and ene 
special sosesoment of 025; that they did net pay any part of sadd 
first mortgage of 74500) which matured om January 15, 19523 that 
shortly after defendants moved out plaintiffs took possession and 
arranged for the extension of the mortgage; that prier to February 
1, 1952, plaintiffs commenced a suit against defendants te veollect 
the inotellment of 270, which matured om Jumuary 15, 19323 that 
thereafter they paid the accrued taxes on the premises, redecorated 
the building completely, made repaira, and negotiated for the sale 
of the premises to a third party; thet sbout the middle of Barch, 
1932, they gold the premises to the third party for 37,2903 and 
that thereafter the suit for $70 againat defendants was dismissed 
upon plaintiffs' motion aud the present action instituted on April 
15, 1932. 

After reviewing the pleadings and evidence we are of 
the opinion thet the finding and judgment of the trial court 
are fully warranted. ‘Shen defendants moved out of the premises 
in January, 1932, and thereafter failed to pay the $70 instaliment 
due on January 15, 1952, and certain accrued taxes, plaintiffs, 
under the provisions of the particular paragraph of the contract 
above quoted, had the option or election ef declering the contract 
forfeited and terminated, By their acts done thereafter (vias, 


taking pessession of the premises, making repairs, re-decorating the 
puilding, negotiating for the sale of the premises and finally 


in March, 1952, selling the geome to a third party), we think it 
should be held that they elected te declare the contract with 
defendants forfeited and terminated, and that the same was fore 


eecnediin tet iidatedg te enniiees es Beth awaacga n, Peony walk 
— GSSRL yee gf yheoe eentensg ed? te duo Apvem siagbaw'tod dadd, 
od atuvacon visidoom bewlupes ile erm bad yods ambe tald of qu said, 
| tt bra nosed besos ole ko emo Bieg son had aut satildaledg 
Shas Be oeoy ome ag doa Bh yess dale 485 te Seowmyosem Lady 
\dhadtd $2882 gL Clams’ ne bysetom dodsbr 4008S Yo — 
me aokseeanay Mood aTthinialg #0 devem adanbavtod spdte yhtxeda 
Yruenivt at “etsy sods secon ele Yectabhanten ath dai ayaa e 
toslias of udnotwwiee daniage thus ——— 
Pats g250L 481 yuouasl mo goxmdes Moldy ,0T> Wo tment Lad: a .oge 
besutonct~ox qgeoulmerg eft Bo aexst homes ond Bheg ysds wottavaess, 
okew «hs wt totadieges bag gasiages shen «wlededgnee, yokhiiud oft 
‘eGetal te efbble add duoda geit gyduag Sudde a of aveiapeg ede te 
Sue POG, YS we Yrtag Guha est of gonsmewy ode Dion yads 4Sees 
hanteet saw adeebastes taataga OCS got diue add cetheoreds stadt, 
fiage me boéuiident auidse jaegetg add Sue oeltom 'ethivalel¢ sequ 
| pe ae —* hae 
te ae ot somsntvs ins damibonte adi wai, 2h” : 
duos Lobse vald — —“ tah mates a 























— —»— ——— 

eattaniolg paexst bewsses alad«se bes otek eit route ae ub 
Fosttiee mig te sen mye ae eakwol ecag ett to anabekvoug ade * 
—E exis antnetees ve wshtovts 6 not ago ond bout wdedoup ‘eveda 
—8 s9¢2ae rods onod agen xindd xm «bo duntwxed due bettotiat 

sel d uabearoood~oe eeiages pation esteimerg odd to ‘molesceneg guides 
Viton’? bas seukuony off Ye ofan ad? tot patdaddopen santhtivd 

$8 Matda ow yl year bxtad ® OF cmos os pabtion .S60L yiouak at 
Mdiw toatdade att exalo ob og botoote ods dad? nked od biwostn 
“STOT Gow tumea tatd Snot been tne sdedcnkuxod ban besteraet winabavten 





“Se 


feited and terminated. And it alse appearing that plaintiffs 

have retained all of defendants! prior payments (aggregating 

over $1700), we think that the further provivion in anid paragraph 

(above quoted) of the contract is applicable, and that it should 

be held thot such retention by plaintiffs is “in satisfaction and 

liquidation of the demages" sustained by them, and that in the 

present action they cannot recover any further sume as damageae 
The judgment of the municipal court, appealed from, 


is affirmed. 
APPIRMEDs 


Seanmlamg Ps Jeg and Sullivan, Je» concure 








i —— —E — * ——* — 
Agogo ‘pina ab modateorg woddit ond’ saith Mibitd ow (COOTRD ‘wre 
bho tk ‘teeta bois eokdavkiqns ‘al dostsnoe eff to Chsdeug Svbda) 
aus wo! down fas a sh nu miata w Moltwegex denn texte bked we 
| —X — — — — 










set weaks 


1S BRB ewee r 

| ke 

x Ay +5 [Ae YAS Pe ws Hee J —R Bees ¥ S ui ed ; * — stata " 
er ca ee TOS ERAN: EB Mai og: —— 


BL aN MRD 3 haa J & i a Peres 3 * eh eke mek wath 


tg —— ‘ 








ee 2 eee ; Sd Bites ae PETALS ee se 3* * 
—— She PASSE SO ee Rivne di ke oe grea f % * 





a ae ake Rt A 
(ies wie Tether ges. dat 
Shek aie eR A gaay 8 ae Sed ay le aggu a 
«BORE 2 BZ 


vig 





Bite he Wk ae 


Bee. WE PE . 6 Fem J sa at os as 

' A TREASON, neil sg! ap gs aM 
COOL R ME TES: NR tie eee 
RE AAW LS Rae. Pe Rae 4 weer 
: SE SC a » PST SES Se ae car") Bie 
Wo? See ER ES ey Oe a Nee gill op * i ee : ; — 

* eat A * ees: Baek wees, 2a 

Oe EES me + puna J 


TD Oi gS 4 RA. MR tel sib 


, * aan ’ Pf 
— — — 2 oe Sees Bite Kata a ia lad wes * 
POS ———— vent a ra, weis x oa 
: 
* ee " » * 
e aD ted — RS ee en — By nh ¢ bees dies ay @ 4J oa 


Panne § OEE Pre whats nat 

J # *8 28 koa 8 hak we ii ae ts a Aen J * i 
out gf —344 a — * * 
— gh TAnemy 
Ta eu eukinave wit by aad 

ig “ teredney felled 

5 i ee x Wass J. capes age i. a? ’ , 
oY Xe Glow ad? so} patted denn ere) 
Sen CHS Bek EKom «oud Ye often th “ 


te 
a 
ay. 
co 
& 





i een a SF gy Se De ees NE et ee es 0 he say Set 34 * im % * * 
* Oe, GS AT Sg LAE Seana Be af Bel ane ot 


Rea? om, ie » Bealy stb 4 — * 


a ee 





y 
MY 


A 


/ 


LAUREECH Me. FINS, for use of v 
SECURITY BANK OF CHICAGO, 
& corporation, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 


56288 


Ve 
PHOMAS J. GRADY and THOMAS 
MALOBEY, 
Sarmmisheess 





HICHAEL FERNITER, ROBERT De 
MELICK and Be De DOLAN, 
intervening petitioners and 
Appelleese 


ie 
/ 
i 


— 
F 


7— 


é 


| 





ADVPRAL FROM 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
OF CHICAGO. 


270 1.4. 628 


Wie JUSTICE GRIDLAY RELAVSEED THE GPINION OF THE CoUnT. 


Om Hay 139 19352, after « trial without a jury in a 
garnishnent proceeding, the cours of ite own motion struck from 
the files the intervening petition of Morris Sommers, and, on 
plainti?f's motion, ordered that one of the garmichera, Thomas 
Maloney, be discharged as sughj ane the court, se te the iseuces 
existing between plainti’f anc the three remaining intervening 
petitioners, found those issues im faver of Michael Ferriter, 
Robert £e Melick and Me De Dolan, intervening petitioners, and 
entered judgwent ou tae fiuding against Thamae J. Grady, gornishee, in 


the owe of $1190.15, “te be paid as foliows: 


$333.22 for use of Mieh- 


av] Perriter, $16.70 for use of “ebert Ds Melick, asd °S59e55 for use oi 


Me Be Solan.* 


Plaimtiff gas appealed frem the judgaent. 


On Apvil 6» 1929, the Security Sank of Chicago caused a 
judgment vy confecuion for $15,951+14 to ve entered in the runicipal 
eourt ageinst Laurence Ms Fine, en two of hic promissery notes dated 
augue’ S» 1926, and payable regpectively in six onc twelve months to 


the order of the bank. 


Om May 25 1929, the ¢ xecus lon was returned 


| 





f * * | 
j i a | 
| \ | 
‘ 
. 

TAO) AMO UME. foc vn 


 oGQAIIO 10... 


889 .A.1 0 * 








a co, a tuodiiv Laled a code —aues o8k wot a 
weet Mewtze nelson mo edd to tamoe ent — E — 
Hp ban gotomas ekxzoll to sodtiveg gakmovtodal odd eoShh ou Be 





saeme? qasodaiwieg on? to pau Joss bovabee quokten of iiemtatg 
anmed off 09 an gfxuo ox? dna qeoue oo depuadonts o@ wna 


gittnrriedst gnimtomes souls od one Vddnbate moewted gatteie 
cieetexo Soaiiosh to soya? a2 eoawed gnarl deme yaromotehiog — | 

bth aauomolsiveg yatanvivdad yuadod «% oM bum sodkol X + saben 

Mk ssetininrog + yoans ol gucetT danlage gah ele ao seoepbe, bemetem: 
sold 20 sau not G6.859 suwedtot aa blog of af” omeevente — Zz 
baw wor SEeBEH) due yhatiek oC dyede to guy sod OTeBES eoedkroE Looe) 
dreams, ond amtt baesgga. wal Tadade “smabe 9S ele ' 

& bestas ogooid: ty deat ylixwest sug — at — edt algae 
Loqtoleun ad? mt howodns 26 os DL LO%ebL) 10h modeostnns 0 | 
hodab yarton Cemezimerg old te ows mo gomlh oi — * cy 
0d arlimon eviews dao atu ah YLovidvoquer eldayag emmy 280K aed 
bowser sew Go! suaeKe old gCRUL gS yo wo aciaul — 

























ole 


by the bailiff “mo part satiefied." Om December 28, 1931, the 
present garnishment procead ing was commence: agninst Thomas J. Grady 
and Thomas Molomey, c¢ garnishers, who therenfter files separate 
BMRWOD Be 

in the angwer of “homae J. Grady, Tiled January 13, 1932, 
he stated in substance that on or about Yotober Ld, 1950, in the 
municipal court, enae Noe L4L350R, a judgment for $1190.15 was entered 
againe} him exd in favor of Thomas Maloney; that om appeal te the 
appeliate court the judgwent wee affirmed, and it is unpaid and in 
full fercejand effeets that om Getober lt, 1930, (about the day 
of the entry of the jasgment ) Maloney, ay written assignment culy 
athknewledgeds, sasianed the judgment ta Laurence 4. Fines that on 
Sovesber 3, 1930, the assigument was filed in the mumicipal court 
and duly neted on the halfeaheet of cause Noe 14135013 thet thereby 
Fine beoame the owner of said judgment; and that by reason of the 
ferezeing this germiahee (Grady) ig indested te Tine, az assignee — 
of the jucgmest, in the gum of $1299.15, tagethes with accrued 
interest at 5 per ecnt per annume 

Im the anewer of Themes Maleney, the other gurmiahee, 
filed Jamuary 22, 1952, he stated in substanes thet neither <t the 
time of the service of the garnishment writ upon sim nor «t any 
time thereafter was he ihdebted to Pine, mor ia he mow inéebted te 
him, in any sum. nd he further stated that shout the time he 
obtained his judgment egninat Grady for 51190215, he duly assigned 
it te Vine by written assignment, duly acknowledged, and the assigne 
ment was filed im cause Noe 14155514 thet the ausiguaent war mace to 
Fine “in trust as security, and fer the purpose of the distribution 
ef the proceeds of said judgment,” ac per a written agreement (copy 
attached), dated October 29, 1930, between nim (Maloney) anc Fines 
that on said dey there was due from him (Maloney; to Fine a balanee 
of £106 for attorneys’ fees, but that thereafter the balanee was 


paid toe Fines etee 


ime 
—— 
J wf on 


Out gSECL qBS edmond nO“ Dettabton teog on” TAAKIod of8 ye 
{or ob wean? guiiogs ceervemes uew gatbeovery snoautaleay - ane J 
 Maexeqee caf 193 Daonne gee acta a — ano an 
@QEOk gS Unuwst do eyhaxd -% aumed? * soma * a ah aes 


ed et gORL gah tadaso's tusda wo mo Seals eucaseirn rT betate * 





att ea pete no tesid peemn tak aouact? to reve a * mast seed : 
a fms Bhegns ai $i baa yhomnlite sav seromg out wal g rnoe —— 
Yah aid guode) O88 L ehh a0d0s00 we said. —— bes ‘ 
























"ela duomngluen modehaw ye ———— — aneem dat | 
my dort? gonk’ oo womemed of soamgh . 
dues iegioianm e238 i bedit saw dion : 
eeoreds dosid FLORELAL ooh ganas ve fendered at co Sofen Vix ta 4 
os ts wonase ye Sale ‘dots ptromgbot kaw Ye tlm eat souood * 
ans a0 .dalY of soddebnd of Cehar@) sottetenag ies —XX 4 | 


bowreben ety vaddoged «Ot 06KL Yo mie Wile —— = a 
‘achdedmten sotto oe <qeeeitint eden" — woe ae | 
ol fs todtttow toc? sonndeeme mt Dedede Ot \OCEL — cal 
ee ee ee fon j 

oe — — woe an 92 <p ana —* eat” nor’ — * —B 


Bo 





bongtera ery ot rer. dorta ot hard — wre ’ ck a 

| smgksen old bun ybogbstvainisn yeeb ——— oon ’ 
OF shew new tusmomtens od deed {LAVELLE oa oamaw md deca eau * 
noliudixdet® wits Yo 20 og 220 oate eo tems years Samed eh" emtt 

© Wes) Aivssoonge aedetew a ang en “ynmmaybiny hh’ Bi ude: ew otk te 
0 et cs (ome) Aa mobvded soves ewebres voted — XRX 





=e 


It appeare from the copy of the written agreement that 
it in dated October 29, 1930, and purports to be signed and sealed 
by Maloney and Fines that it is therein recited in substance that 
in the municipal court emuse, Noe 1415551, Maloney recovered a judg- 
ment against Grady for “approximately $1200," that the ease has been 
appealed to the appellate court and it is necessnry te expend further 
moneys for services, printings costs amd other expenses, that Pine 
has rendered attorney's services in that cause and is to receive $300 
for the services, that one He Je Dolan hae also rendered services 
therein and ig entitled to a fee therefor, that one Morrie Sommers 
has me certain advances te Pine for Maloney's benefit, and thet 
Maloney is indebted te one Michael Ferriter fer cash advaneed from 
time to time im the sum of $400, whe is continuing to advanee further 
eumse it ie then agreed between Maloney and Pine as follows: 

That Maloney shail execute and deliver to Fine an eesigne 
ment of said judgment “with the widersjunding that Time shall, upon 
the ultimate recovery and eellection of enid jud and interest 
thereon, apply emda ¢ —— the Lol aig Aa as follows s* 

That Pine eheil himself any unpaid balanee 
due him for hie zervicea ae pe Me Pi and aleo reimburce hinmesitf 


for any expenees by way of corte, primting or otherwiee im econneetion 


with the aferesaic auit. 
2. Te repay to anid Morris Somers such amounts acvanced 


by him for and om behalf ef Hulcney, t+ the extent that the work, 
laber sad material furnished by Sommers chall have fallen short of 


the edvances by Semmere te Fine, 
Be 8100 te be paid to Me is Yolan as ant for hia fee for 


services randered in — SeUeGe 

4e 850 to be paid to Hobert De Melick, attorney, for 
assietance remiered and to be —“ im the preparation of the 
vrief and otherwise in said cause 


5. All of the —53 of aaid judgment to be paid te 
Michoel Yerriter to apply om indebtecness which haa aceruce ami is 
to acerue fer numerous adyonees by Ferriter to Maloney. 

About the same time (January, 1952) that Malomey's answer 
(ae garnishee) was filed, Ms le ielan, by leave of court, filed an 
intervening petition in which he alleged that on December 31~_ 1050, 
he recovered a judgment in the municipsl court egainst Ealoney in 
the sum of $2265.05, which judgment is still im fuli foree anc effect. 


after setting forth the facts (as stated im Maleaey's ssid answer) 
of Maloney's recovery of said judgment againet Grady of 1190415, on 


we 
— 


eacie soomeotye matddas od? te yqee od? ser etoecgs 42 
—E ——— 
dais puuatadun mh bedhoes mhowede af #2 Jade pomtt ous yomaled yt 
oyghuh a bevovenet yale yLOGcis£ ook yeeuen duis — oat — 
seed mel ouag add Sed? "0049 yLletamixonge" wet vand denies tom 

vedtuyi baegxe of yseneocem af 32 Sua cone waliogga eft et beLag 
 akE dant gaeameque seseo fem edges egutigleq aneolvres oh exten 
Ones svieoet a2 gl tre omuas dade ai seolveon al yond ee . beseheys aad 
geokvma betobsoy opts gad aadod of ok ome sas? quetenea, * | 10% 
qa roeasa eixeell ong gots, gsotwredé co a of vokettue sd, dae bas. bored 
gate dem gti veoed af yomedel. cok ent ee. seomevae ahat ree ota o 
most Seoneven dace set todivest Loodoe ene et hobo tart. el ynedal 
<edfewt somayhe ¢ yittwatinoe ek osw 40000 Se mm exit mt ont: of, eat 
tawettot ex ouk% dae yomeiat noord tone onde at ok same | 


etgiace me eakt of aeviish tea ofuooee Linde wed 
ogu gifede emi sacs ge — oe — 
erarabe we 3G wes a 


—— —2 eau a “4 —* ube 


— bea —D— a8 — —* 
meltussuco al eelwredde ae gtthintuq — Emme 






























bsougy2a @ faxous eve atoms ekxiel Shee * 

es 207 edd geld trodes * ‘eer Ls 

te tuate wefiet oved Liake gsomaed. xd. % fed 
— 

— ——— 


G2 eYortmsis giles. é, 
oda te 02 deteqorg oa aa te ** —* 


go Bly ge 


gin boxkd (venues to owabt Ge ceieket 4C ae eee’ J— * —— 
SOBRE GLE odo mo Sault Digi eat Hota set inte habe | 
ak yomedol Pontege duo Laqloteier OMe nt Fesugbit J 
deere tute oorot Civ mt C£iee ok feos at —F it B05 est tw 
(rowan bkow a*yonotait i vee: — wat its ee 
wm «is oUO Wh ‘han ga ell witha eed 











ate 


October 145 1950, of Waleney's assignment of that judgment to Pine, 
and of the agreement between Maloney and Fine of October 29, 1930, 
Dolan further alleged that the aseignment of said jucgment to Fine 
“was nob mace for the purpose of transferring the same te Pine, 
indivicually, but to Fine in trust to pay specified parts thereef 
to Me ie Dolan and other orediters of Maloney, in pursucnee of a 
certain agreement im writing, executed by Maloney and Fine at the 
time of said assignment, which said writing is now im the possession 
of Fine;" and thet seid judgment “does mot belong to and is net 
the property of Pine, but that he holds the seme ae trustee for 
your petitioner (Jelan) and other ervditers of Maloney.” | 

To Dolan's intervening petition Pine (the nominal plain- 
tiff), om January 28, 1932, filed an answer in which he admitted 
the recovery by Maloney of eaid jucgment of 91190.153 admitted the 
assignment of seié judgment by Maloney to Fine, under an agreement 
im ~riting (copy attached), dated Cetober 29, 1930, and entered 
into by and between Kaloney and Fine, “designating the persons 
therein nemed as distributees of the funds recovered from snid 
judgment, subject to the conditions and limitations in said agree- 
menty” and slleged that “there ig nothing due from Moloney to 
respondent (Fine) and that he now has no financial interest in 
said assignment.” 

During Mareh, 1952, by leave of court, Michael Ferriter, 
Robert Melick and Morris Sommers, each filed separate intervening 
petitions. As Sommers did mot appeer at the subsequent hearing and 
did not cause any testimony to be introduced to custain hig petition, 
and as the court made no finding concerning him, the allegations of 
his petition need not be mentioned. in Melick's petition, after 
referring to the jucgment obtained by Maloney against Grady, the 
assignment thereof by Maloney to Fine, anc the written agreement 
between Maloney anc Fine of October 29, 1950, he alleged that 


ph, te 
pt 


eon oF sumegiwt das to tuomeptcas at youoksit Ye soe vk wogogy0 
(g8EQL Q@R redes0O to om hao Yodetall moods — ne we * 
onkt of srecigtul Sted te escmbghoas of? Salt hopes > wade 
 goukt oo oma t40 yuberstenaxd Yo: saequg od? x0 ‘oben tom sar" 

me — nas — — 
ge opmsumuct ab gyn Yo Weadtdow ‘adido baw aniked oS oti oF 
eal ani ont aaah 0 willed ete WE hadinligs taba 
notuyonavg edt mt wou wh gmidixw biew delew — ED Abas * ont 
fom wt ban ot gmoded Fr seo" fwakgout Bice ‘gnaty bee “pout Ye 


venom Seat ue sont 16 xoesguse ol 















| wnialg Sasimon od} ert —* — 
westimka et dotdie mi womens ms baxn rans oy eit 





 hbes mack boxeveded a ben’ aah $1 caeuia — ats eae 
sovenn kee m2 omeltadints baw uttek sbonoe ext oy svetdos a aoa dut 

0? Yommtomt mort on ytthetdon gf sien” Posie hepotan ‘een y a 

E — 








—R Sooo tu siaueo te evxet we eed: vidonstt gated) ie. 
aéthnevindal odunagos baktY dose gwtomme sedesolt beet sp bit’ allie 
hee ghtteod dmemperdun oe dn tosqye som Bkh wvommot eA venetetieg: 

esoliitog aid atasons 08 hogwiertsh o¢ ot ~mamtined yao weune don Se 

to auationelia edi gata gutwrecnes grttnt® om shea tutor edt oe toll 
wodte auotdtieg atdotiod at .benetonem of gor beet moteivve et 

eaid sydawd Sontogs Yorekst vd hetttntee taamphat ode b4 gabexeter 
ala tee * — en — neeney toni 














oSe 


“snid jucgment was assigned to Fine, not individuslly, but ag 
Srugtee to collect and pay the proceeda to petitioner and certain 
ether creditors ef Haloney, in cecordenee with the provisions of 
said written agreements" that “on O2tober ld, 1930, and for a long 
Sime prior thereto, Nolaney was indebted to petitioner in the sum 
of $59," and that by the sscignment of said judgment “the beneficial 
interest thercef was not transferred to Fine, but thet he held the 
same fer the benefit of Yoloney'’s erediters, including petitioner .* 
in Verriter's petition he alleged (1) that om October 29, 1930, 
Maleney was indebted to him in the eum of 599) for money leaned 
from time to times; (2) that Maloney obtained a judgment against 
Grady for $1190.15, and assigned the some to Fine “in trust for 
Coliection and payment to the fcliowing ersditers of Maleney in 
these amounts; Sommers $200, Lolan $100, Melick $50, and the aalanee 
to your petitioner to apply en seld inéobtednescg” amd (5) that 
said judgment “ig not tne propesty of Fine, Sut tant he holds the 
same? 2g trustee on she structs ebove eet forth.” 

Om the trial the three intervening potitionera, Fers iter, 
Helick and Dolane to sustain the slicgsotiema of theiy respective 
petitions, intreduced considerable documentary evidenet, including 
the aesignment te Fine ef the judgment fer 41190015, anc the written 
agreement between Maloney and Fine of Gotober 29, 1050, suc they 
onlleé se their principal witness Laurence ss Fine, whe gave teuti- 
mony,» and was cross-examined at great length by the attorney for the 
beneficial plaintiff. Sach of the three intervening petitioners 
teatificd in his own behalf aud each was cress-cxstiagi., “nC 
Thomas Maloney, ealied by the petitioners, guve vonslierabie testiq 
mony on dirset and erems-examination and on examinatiea by the court. 
Bo evidence vhatever was offered by the bexeficiai plainvifi te 
eentradict thet introduced by the intervening petitioners, waich 


disclosed thet Fine, im taking the cssignment from “=\aney of his 


pes WHA git “pea 
— —— aa — st, Bion’ 
ates bee somelaiieg o2 absrromg odd “ng, bate suestes ry soiouss 
Ye, auoletyor, ods Midw apnebsoops mi ayPMBsell Fe mxostoen® sedgo, 
Bited 6 sO brs ORES adh KoWos00 Rom sods “ttermons p mae 
aie alt Bd nomertivog oa bosdabnd sow epmeLeR, — — 
Satosronod ot” tepaminl Dine Yo teseupives ead ye tol & ** 
mit A ot test aud ,ontt od bextetaneid tent gow Boeted ho 
















oa 














aOSRL 28h 00800, ne saste (hi — ope hie. Ee 
—6 Wess soi CORE To ame okt wh ata OF zeeet * “ae 
a. gust mat wash ot. cmmag wat. egal na, re, 4 AF 
A Wennkell ty esoti bows, gubwelSo?. pile 9d tmmanyen 7 
— pomakest, ws bas AVG Relde goOL) gated gvOS> axpame? 

det? (2), bee, “gnesmaptde bat jing. me wlge om a 
etd abkod ad gots sud gouk Io ——— et: joa — * 
‘hired doe, 17H 8 fase ‘ nth re 





SR ty Crea Sib 


"ele teid te — out. pation he snaked bee 
atbudent aoonv bins Bindtomegs ekkexreatages a: . cheek 4 get 
massiin odd bun ike LLY 2O% Soompin, ad to — — 

Wt, de: 4905S, a resiadeO te mks fom xe : . 
atid iam ode gant oh sonnel peanthy — —— 
5 eed ies ei et aoviednt wet aly 2o Maal 9 




















* * olaoned * « ** 
— — ——— sed es 





“Ge 


judgment against Grady, received it mot individually for his own 
benefit (except as security for a amall indebtedness whieh Maloney 
then owed to him and which afterwards was paid in full) but as 
trustec, in trust for the use and benefit ef the four intervening 
petitioners, including Sommers (who failed to appear on the trial 
and prove his claime) 

The main contention ef counsel for the beneficial plaintirr 
ig that the findings and judgment of the court are against the manie 
fest weight of the evidence. ‘Ye cannot agree with the contention. 
We think it clearly appears thot Fine, ac assignee of the judgment 
for 21190615, held such aenigament not for hie own benefit but os a 
trustee for the use and benefit ef the intervening petitioners. It 
is well settled on principles of equity that property held by an 
execution debter in trug$ for othere, and not for himeelf individually, 
ie mot subjeet to g=rnishment by the execution erediter. (28 Corpus 
Jurise Be Ul%— secs 1635 Hodson ve MeCommeds, 12 Tlie 170, 17239 Carr 
No @aughs 26 tlie 413, 4233 Jeeman vs Commercial Nat. Bank, 15¢ 11. 
530, 5595 Heir ve — — SO Lille Appe 2ll,g 2155 
_ Norther t 218 Tlle Apps 133, 141.) Counsel 
fox the beneficial plaintiff argue in their brief in gubstanee that 
the written agreement of Cctober 29, 1930, between Maloney anc Fine, 
as to distribution of the proceeds of said judgment, was a mere 
*cubterfuge® and fraudulent aa te the rights of their elient. But 
they did not intreduce amy evidenee tending to prove any such fraud, 
and fraud is never presumed amd the burden of proving the invelidity 
of such inetrument om the ground of fraud was upon the beneficial 
plaintiff. (See cheldon Hinton, 6 ILle Appe 216» 224.) 

ané counsel, further contending that the written agreement 
o2 October 29, 1930, dees not properly constitute an equitable assign- 
ment, in favor of the intervening petitioners, of the proceeds ef said 








ww abet awk yffandivibat gon 2 bowleoet gysus® dankage dmemphet, 
Wwuelet Motee sesabstdotat Liame @ tet Yoiuoen ne Sgoeme) stoned 
oa gee (tie at Rhay ane ubaueredta Boidw baw add’ of newelelly 
—————————— 


dete ordinal —3 * — ote) stemue gal 











Witelatg Litordewed oid xwY Loemvon Te ueldaoande | 
oft — Gila ‘Vii vcd Wi Villian, Wl 
‘enol duodme ad? Adin coxge somseo ew" | 
dsvwomnice, edt % somloua ca quatt to) wtasqae eltadke or sii pt 
a ns dud ¢Fionsd meq als v0¥ int ton i i 
at yaremed di dey sudaowsedat ag? Ye Pbiowew tae eau aiid i a ith 
a⸗ ew atest Wersqony ted? elupe 16 oedgtonke wo botztn site 
euikaubty2hat Yovsitd xt tom hms yerodes soi gum af wbtedl mab suivem 
| ange) 88) .xestbors mat suoone ads qd avatar of | —— — 
mu ave eOPE Ltt ex ,foauedot ev moana waz —* i? * , . 
EL BAK siagl odp% Lotonommad * —k— ood set = 4 ap 
ache ee gga efit oe one eee a — 
Beanie? { * 0688 —8 — ers — EO See 




















. sont ‘bas youedes — tend oft condos * * ba “sid iy pean 
tu6 sake tied to o abate old 08 aA 6 nets ik aes — 










‘i smo eldadiups nes oud! Someo Arvaora son eooh ee J — 
at atooneng sits * seronatatiog aberrant “sats ‘te — thi 3 13 J 
ers ciara Sith J Rak henge - 





«Je 





judgment, cite the ease of Commercial National Bank 
172 Ille 565, in support of their contention. ‘Ye eannot see 
that the holdings in that case, under ite particular facts, should 
se be applied to the facts in the present ease as to require a 
revereal of the judgment. 

Our conclusion in the trial court did not err in enter 
ing the judgment appealed from, and accordingly it will be affirmed. 

APPIRME De 


Seanlam, Ps Je, and Sullivan, Js, coneure 





eon dennes oF ,»meiimedmon tinde ee. 


ued anton’ xptuchenog 08% xotmm «ans dat? a sgathtad pated | 
# oninven Of ne ouso, Seseeu, aut ut afnad edt: of: bektags: ogee : 


wena ae — — — 
































F * 
* me * 
— — 
F 
4, * F * 
— 
q r ~ ‘ 
4 
oe Wi — 
— 
i, i‘ pee wa 
, ‘ * 
* i Ey 7 —— 
f * * iy & 
’ ‘ 4 
un 7 * 
bY es i PA a 
x ; Pisce oH xe he 
e ba ' scp — — 4 
34 PP: af F J a , ire - 4 
— * ae & cat ys é 
—X Hf ee IP 
> t * By eae * oe , eS ee 
—* is ; ww Ns, g oo i ein ae Thee es WAS oP 
¢ + * 
f avg or * * Sires date ice” hoo 
& ae ae we —1 ae UGS — fob 
” “ > nt J. 4 — chairs Swot 
m * * J ‘ee 
: + ’ ge one 
> 
aN OPS Putty, sie aon a : a 
ot a — Lika ae i AP. 2). <0 EE aN 
° 
‘ 16 ; * A J sey? 
HX ja ate ACES ae Se) pe REE 








lh tng & 
arg ake? 














ees ve loot 


ioe 









a 
eid 


36307 / 


NE eet 9 x. 





MIDWAY STATA BAWK, ⸗ 
® corporation, 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 


Ve 
TOWN NH. BANTSOLAS amd APPEAL FROM 
BM, WOWTKOS, 7 
befendants. MUNICIPAL coun? 
Peni OF GHIGAGUs 
He NOMIKOG, rYF~ NTA arn Oo 
Appellee. 24 ? 0 L. A. © 2 8 


MBq TUSTIOn QRIGAY 202 GPIRION OF THE Gout. 


Om Pebruary 9, 1932, plaimsiff eauacdi « judgment by 
eonfeasion far 01165087, inclucing attorncy'’s feen, to be entered 
against the defendants upon a jucgwent note for 01,000, signed by 
them, date¢ Jume 15, 1931, and payable thirty days after date to 
Plaintiff's order at ite banking heuee in Chicago, with interest 
at Y per cent per annum after maturity. Om Yebruary 19, 1952, the 
egurt, on Nomikes’ verified petition being filed, ordereé tha} the 
fudgment be opened, that he be given leave to defend, that the judge 
went stand «s security and that hig petition atand a» an affidavit 
ef merite. On July @1, 1932, there wae «a trial without jury, 
resulting im the court finding the iseues against plaintiff ae te 
Pomikos, and efjudging that the Judquent se confessed againat him 
be set aside and he recover hie cocte from plinintiff. The present 
appeal followed. 

tm Memikes’ petition or affidevit of merits he mace the 
following sliegetions in substancet 

That about November 15, 1930, at Banteolas’ request, 


he wont te pinintiff bank with Bantselae and had an interview 
with plaintiff's exchier, Ruy 1+ Delassus; that Delaseus as euch 


© — — 
a eae F * 
a . ——— 
yi 


eC eA 
£ 


‘gc. .A.1 0 


2 T8100 Ws 80 KOLMATO oY CTV Te od TERY, — 





EMBERS pad oes UO Gag ae a 79 a 





wa foment a beeen Tibvmtadg yS8OL 48 yeavaiet ai : 
boxndee od ad aaoe% atgonuedtde wad tateand oP. carr ‘tot —— é’ re f | 
we boule 9000458 tel efor faonghet, « aogy udandacied oat domtege 

















eo oteh vod wyoh ytaldtd ekdeyeq ame 4fter sat one’ — ae 7 
duetetud déiw yogesds® af esonel pebtnad 222 fe woos wh tthen ee a 
ed? SSCL 40k Yeortee’ w oyetemben ted he awee veg deo cog vie 
ot Gait tovebee deity ented mettiten battiewy *eatiatt a yu | 





oghul, etd ade busted of evwel sovlg od od dad? sienna wit deal 
divabtr in me ax Baas wotdtieg ett Sait? bem Ytewese an bande tet 
— & Swodete Lated = gow oxodd ,00er ft eivt nO eaddes all 

of on Tikiutale dontege wowse! ext? gatdalt —— ai yeltivdse — 
sid Somboge henastime so tevomiul od tout gotppethe en yuakteele 

— of? ViEatoly most atees eid tovenes wf ta ohtan $0 oe 
al? shea af agixeow te sivablYte se neldieoy — ye te: qi 
teomedadin ab anokeugecta satencton ; 

phetugve Pantunteill te $m sORUL 484 xodmover gueda tod? ae — 


a6 bod has aalewtanh sitw we fentate 6 =f * 
ese svenntod gad? fasmnaded o/ Yul ¢ teldes ‘td ods now — 
























“20 


Cashier told him (Homikes) that Bantselas and others had pre- 
viously eigned a note te the bank im the emownt of chout [¢,000, 

and that *"Santeolas did not haye enough Balanee in his account 

te show and extiofy the bank examiner and the directors of the 

bank that the lean to Bantsolas waa justifiedy” that thergapon 

voth Bantroles and Delaasus requested him (Yowikos) to sign x 

note to the bank for $1,000 (which had already been signed by 
Banteolas) and thet the eum of $1,000 would be erecited te 
BanteGlaa' account with the bankg that upon his refusal to comply 
with the request Delagsus, ae eashier, represented te end preniised 
him (Semikos) that suid sum of @1,060 “would always remain in the 
bank ae a guorantee of the $1,000 note ond thet eeid eum wevld not 
umdet any eotiniderstion or eondition be withdrawn by said Bantaclas 
or be <5 gee or uped for any other purperes” that thereuper he 
(Somikes), relying upon the representations and guarenty of Delsasaus 
ag such cashier, executed the $1,000 motes alrendy signees by 
Semtsolaa, payable te the task's order, and renewed the anme from 
Sime to time; ond that he (Newikes) ‘never received any consid erstion 
fox wigning the note,” whieh was signed “only after eaid representa- 
tions and agreement of the enshier of the bank had been mede.* 

Om the triel Nomiker was a witness in his own behalf and 
Santeclas testified for hime VYomikee aleve called Relassugy, the 
tashier of the bank, ae a witnees under gection 53 of the Munietpal 
Court Act. Delaesue gave further tertimeny when tallied ag plaine 
tiff’s witness. Certaim writings ales were introduecd. The evie 
genee disclosed in substance that Banteolea ami other sexbere of a 
ehureh, on reeeiving 4 lean from the bank, had eneeuted a mete for 
#32,0003 that by verious payments thie indebtedness hat beer 
reduced te $5,800; that on Hay 7, 1030, Banteolas and aaid other 
meabera exeeuted and delivered te the hank their judgment sote for 
26,800, paysble te the order of the banks that by Ooteber, 1956, 
only two payments on thie note had been made, reducing the indedtede- 
meas to about 956005 that the bank, expecting a visit from a bank 
@taminer, devired to have ite record show that at least one of the 
signers of this note carried « deposit in the banky thet it 
requested Banteclas to wake such a deposit but he ¢cither could not 
er would met ſo s0% that am arrangement wae made between Santaclas 
and Pelaseus thet if Ganteolas would eign a 91,090 note payable to 
the bank and procure the sigmature of unothur persen on the note, 


the bank «ould deposit $1,000 of its funde to the eredit ef 





oy 
«gf BONG DS tuede te tomome off at daad orf 
 Smmeota ahit wh womaled tywome wrad & 
at? te —— ed? to reetacxs — ent YInte ¢ oF 
seqgane Keto BA yeas g aaue —— a? anol aaa — 
—J— ar —— 


wend Yaorals hath hottie) Hed g SE ** 
2 —333 7 ———— te —* eat sane pote 
fangtex vist mogw Giued off dain dmucnen * 
oval hes of betuoeo ww yretiene ae —— ⸗0 
ye xt sees Las — POG @ 


bad evedée bus eeloatuad fate dict ston 2 8 
of eben « ha 
* B&B é 









— 32 dats "you me sadibo gun soe bean te | 
Ystiatess bas tadnese aud 
‘ef bomtusie Yhovite getom G0%,f odd So . 
Gout exiee ont Sowexnes Bea gtebu6 a*dned odd of shtayeg 
malserseienee vee bevieses tower" wen) aU) om fori Goe poets oF amie 
snbon 9 yo ee ee —* aw dodie *, acon —A 
ban ceed bed weed ods Ye <eideso adit fwnaenge f td 


one Yadod wre ald mt asontin « gaw eealteg’ Lui ee ae — 
— 

Xbotna oe te se meiiows sohen. aecgtiin, «98, eat oat: rabdess 
woth ab ee baling saudw xndatt i908 rediask ey mane 










PP ee ae | ee eg 











skys. ee » beawboramt oren cele eQuléiqw Miatees i a 
a % sredewe zantde bin salon dtiad Face mens at, pan * abe : oh ; 
08 atom 1, bedwoene heel qinad off gtk man 6 gniviaeck 29. ¢ u we 
Raed hat paombatdobat ald? atopy aunixay yd dectt | 


| _xodta Aion due saleninal .0S@S _% yell wm Paul 490R3) of deowhan 
“w? atom dmoaghuh sisd? Yuet wd of hoveylhap —“ xed 
4068L vrndedoO YS todd saleed ad? Yo wobze ot ot aiteyeg 5008S 
wbodnhant eat patouhex aches move baal ston olds as oie · eat aut t 7 
dead a wort state « gal taegue quesd oete tue qQOUe) 08 vas 
wt to ome fecal ta sete wets Devnot of2 wed op Deuleoh axa 
th dads pied odd at tieoges a betaxep, ston ates, Re, dois 
Iai: — emithe od tut shaoges « Hous vale as eating aE bp ‘ oi — a 
aafontnad miocdtod thew onw seemopme Me ded 10R.0D son bkvew we 
od shdeoyet oom 000.2 2 mle hinew smiontan® Bh. tagt. wwene tes. 
crt os me monroe, seltons Yo estonia ed samemy ae —X 


—— ——— 


a |e abone ois af anew wet 20 0O04LE dt 





















“30 


Baxteolas in a anvinge account in the bank in Bantsolas’ names 

that curing October, 1950, on the representations made by Delnecuay, 
substantially as above stated im “omtkos’ petition, Youtkos sfemed 
a 61,900 mete unternenth the siguature of Konteelas, payable te the 
bank, an¢é therenfter ofgned similar renewnl notes including the 
note sued upon, dated Jume 15, 1931 thet Yomtkos newer received 
any consideration far ataning aay ef sid neten? that upon the 
execution of the firgt $1,990 nete the bank opened « anvings accout 
in Dantselas’ namo giving him a eredit therein of 71,0009 that 
Banteolas never recsive! a bank vook evidencing goi¢ eretit to him, 
and never thereafter mado any depesite te or withdrawals from the 
ategunt or exereiced any centre] ever the necount or made apy 
éemande on the bank for the money} that the savings seccount roma ined 
im the aume condition om the benk's booke ap it wean whom opened, 
until February 6, 19329 thet im becember, 1935, the bauk caused a 
judgment by confescion te be entered against Bantselas and the other 
signers ef the £5600 note; thet the indebtedness evidenced thereby 
wae thereafter put in a “suspense aceowiig" Gant on February €, 132, 
Belaasuss as esshier, by an entxy on the bank's books made a gree 
tended transfer of the $2,000 (atili in gaid savings account te the 
eredi¢ of Banteolas) to said “suspense account” ami credited the 
$1,006 on the old indebtedness of Banteolas -« evidenced by said 
$5,800 notes and that, three days afterward, the present judgnent 
by confession wie entered as firet above mentioned. 

After considering all the evidence, we are of the opinion 

that the court woe fully warranted im holding thet Somikes was not 
Liable te the bank on the mote sued upon, and in entering the judg- 
ment appealed from ageinet the bank in Nowikes' favore It suffie 
ciently appears that the note aued upon, so fax as Konikes is con- 
cerned, has no comaiderntion te euppert it. itm this cemmeetion 
the case of Straus ve Citizens State Banks 254 111. 180 (uffirming 













tt — Lovviet: xitinta demmds cog tenes 
“Wrrtener hal wees teat’ — * ait —* * «tog 





mae; ee dRhorm blae —— Sope : be 
te ost afawothttiv so of abtveih ‘eu ‘oh —X 

wie oham te dasques add x0we Lesions yas aie 6 pane 

beat oon davecon sgatvan afd tad! yyenom ont 16% sued odd wo nbmameh 

| ee el ae Ee a 


7 * — 
—2 — Gi 
———— F cee. aaa. naa 
ge * is A 3 eA te 3 } 
* UY ES RN ae 
‘ ee Sere R Tero. Var Miia 
Hy eee a Ai Gs 
fe 5 f 








vedio * Lats 8tleuns hak —E ‘shies oa ek natoao * — lad ‘ 
—— boonvblve auenbosdebad * ad eter —* J 








ee ae ae oe L 


: sone da sg ahd a i ow val 
etd of susovon byetvns phon’ at Edda) 006528 way to — bebmed 


ghd bodhbece tke “tmvoven onmeghoe” bine of Ceakondaat te dbivex | 
hes TH hoomwnsve as — be sxsabet delat be tb me 0004s : 





a ee Cee 


ole 


164 Tle Appe 420, 431) moy be cited, where it in aeid (p> 187)s 


"If there was no concidvration for the note the bank 
cannot be a holder im cue courses for value. There are some propes 
sitions that are o0 well ecttled smi clear that any attempt at 
argument in —— of them is a useless expenditure of times That 
a promissery note made and executed without ceneldersation and 
received By the payeo upon an agrecment that the maker should sever 
be called upon te pay the some ia invalid im the hamic of ouch ee 
= oa enforged agaimet the maker, is a preposition of tha 

Pacters 


The judgment of duly Bl, 1952, appealed from, should be 
and is affirmed. 
AVPTARE De 


Scanlan, Ps Jes amd Vullivanty Jos conqurs 


— 
¥ 
PR. — 


sli» coud 





i “ x 
i i i 
a” S » 
36316 ‘| ‘tgs: 
Sy a 4 


BLBANGR GSTAANDABER, 
appellee, 


Ve 


CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & 

QUINCY RAILROAD Gee 

a eorporatiat, 
Appellant. 


) 
) oe 
APPSAL FROM CIRCUIT GoURT, 
COUR COUNTY. 


270 I.A. 628" 


MEe JUSTICE GRIDLEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


By this appeal defendant seeks ta reverse a judgment 
rendered againat it on May 14, 1932, for $2950, following the 
verdict of a jury, in an action ef trespass on the cane for 
damages, occasioned by the deatruetion by fire of certain 
horses, the property ef plaintiff, while in defendant's ear at 
Imperial, Nebraska. There have been two trials of the exse. 
The first, in february, 1932, resulted in a verdict against 
éefendant fer the same amount, but a new trial was granted. 

Plaintiff's ée¢leration as smended consisted of four 
counts, te seach of which defendant pleaded the general issue. 
in the firet count it is averred thet on January 79 192%, 
éefendant poesessed and opersted a railronc and wae a eomson 
carrier for hires that on said day plaintiff ot Imperial, 
Nebraska, enused te be delivered to it, and it received, fourteen 
horses belonging to plaintiff te be eafely carried from imperial 
te “iversides, Californias and at the last mamed place to be eafely 
delivered to plaintiff fer a reward paid; that cefendant did not 
eefely carry and deliver the horses to plaintiffs; but that on the 
contrary by defendant's negligence the horses afterward, on the 
game day, at Imperial, became and were wholly lost te plaintiff. 
In the second count, after making similar allegationa as to 
éefendant being a common carrier and receiving the horses for 


* — 
* * ‘a * Hi 
. } , 1 \ \ * ‘ ’ os R sdk : F Sy aly Eh ae 
* 4 — 
ee . me i, Wee pte Eagga os & 
J F 


— raven MORE — — 
Yee RA 


geo AT OTS” ] 


eTHVOO SET TO MOTHISO ENT GHAVIIGE VRC AO TOLTAUE . me 





deomgovt & setovs7 ef adeen Saminetod Ribiiee eidt yt cents 
até pakwolfot 49008 tot gSS@L »dL yo mo 43 fanioge boaobenn 
tot seen od? me sengeet? to meldoe me at eva, a %0 totbuey 
Miasees Xe erlk yi mebdertiaed of YF hemolenoue eaegennd 
#2 unm el imobmetob mi afide ,Iitaialg To yesgony olf 000 ted 
conse edt Yo ekaled ow? need oved ered? <aieandet ¢fahregel 
geniega dolocov 2 af bodkunex ~8OL qyxawedst at ydextt off 
sbotuery eaw dale? wea a dud gtnweme omen af? 10% énnbne ted 
TuGt to Dedelasee bobweme: sa molintexons e'RtRémiali | 
souvent Leronog ott bohaciq snabustes soidw Yo dens of sedumee 
eO2GL 4 erewnal ao todd bowreve vf 24 demon toti?t eff at | 
foams 2 caw bas heotilax s be teoveqge toe boeeoseog sSaebas ted im 
siaitoqal te 2ilimtetg yob bdes wo gods genta 40? tedeese 
wendyuck ghovieoet #2 baa g4t of hovevhted od of beaune castant dol 
Lalvogm: nox? belsios yetes od of Yeidmlel¢ of yutgnoled seated 
Coton sd of vvalg hemo Sunk ode to bmn yolmtothdsd goblaxovth of 
tom Dkk dandweted sare ghiag Grower s «ot Viidaletg of bexevifeh 
oft mo fads gud gtiitaiealg od aseved od¢ ceviked tae yrtee Usten 
+Titdataty of sok “LLorte oxow bas omoved gLetxoqul te «yeb ome 
wot asses old yaivisoor ona xobezas dommes = guted tushasten — 







e290 


the shipment mentioned, it is averred in substance that on said 
day and at eaid place defendant, disregarding its duty, failed 
te previde a safe and suitable ear for the transportation of the 
horses; that by reason thereef on Jonuary %, 192%, the horses 
were destroyed by fire, killed and became wholly lost to plaintiffs 
and that the fire was not due to any negligence of plaintiff or her 
agents. In the third and fourth counts, ac amended, there are 
similar allegations. The gist of the third count is that by reason 
ef defendant's negligence the horses, on said day and at anid place, 
“were suffoonted and burned to death by fire and beeame and were 
wholly loct to plaintiff." In the fourth eount it is everred that 
on the dny mentioned defendant, disregrrding its duty, “failed to 
provide proper facilities for the uwnleading of the horses while the 
ear remaimed in its yards at Imperial” that «= fire eceurred in said 
yards, causing the burning or destruetion of the ear in which the 
herses were loadedj and that as a result eof defendant's failure te 
provide said proper unloading facilities, the horses were suffoented 
and burned to death and were wholly lost to plaintiff. In the 
Geelarntion the demage sustained by plaintiff is alleged te be the 
sum of 32950. 

Plaintiff was a witness in her own behalf, and hex father, 
George A. Getzendaner, her mother Nora J. Getzendaner, and ene 
Magnus Henson, an employee on the Getzendancr farm at Champion, 
Rebraska, testified for hers ‘She also introduced in evidenee a bill 
of lading, or “Uniform Live Stoek Contract," dated “Imperial, Hebe, 
Jane Ty 1929," signed by defendant by its agent, one Beczley, at 
Imperial, ani delivered about 7 e'clocks, pe me on the day of ites 
date to George H. Getsendaner at Imperial. No evidenee was introduced 
by defendant. At the close of plaintiff's evidence defendant's 
motion for a directed verdict in its favor was denied. Thereupon 
the jury were instructed by the court. Some of the given ine 


bken oo gosid somududvs al touveva al #2 ghorelhéeom faemmide one 
bolts o¥swh adi gui otagotele ,éiabasted soaky dian ta betd Yak 


soazgHt add 49GCL 9° Yrnumal mo Rooredts nouns Yt taf? qeourad 
Yibtabele os Sask “Aled emeood bra boLtid yoxkt yl boyortach oxow 
wed 1 Wisniedy Yo venegiigum yx os ow dom aow suey od todd bm 
» eee reds be borvate we ,atnues —82 nets: outa call - —* ite ’ 
moeno “d dete ak duwao batds off to taty oT ranotiapel.ts taliate 
esealg bla ¢4 kee Yoo bins me gaowrert edd vooegl qed a dnatineted ‘to 
ot9W dna smwoed Ins outY XE Mdg0b af Somaad dun dataporina oxow® 








eit te woktedtueqacat? wi? «ct te aLdatioe bes ston a ‘thie’ ⸗⸗ 


tad? derteve wt 4% temoo Atuwer ext ak. — 


——— on —— aia 


oat atetw — ads Le print 4 ‘eile #3 2 

biee ak beusvocg ott # dade Mehadmoqmt, to oto 98 mh, ie 
od? rioide ak so ent $0 solteuttad x9 anbetud ods anteuso «alae 
od ousttet etinaineted to. ¢ivees « em ted? oe, qhebook orow aa ao 
bo dad o Nauce stow csated edt saotitiiest gabveodn noqgetg bias obkn 
eds ok .tileatalg of mel yiforle exw baw Ktnwh od ‘nemesis ‘ti 

















odd of ge begetix wh — IE Sc” 


eaette? “et bas «tialed ane cod |@h eeondiw o wow Thivedals 1a) Kotha Romie 


| sae inn omaha «1 


- githtetiad® go orm’? tombnendet vats no svyelgay nae — 
Lid » somwdive ut beckbotdst cote ost sual wot ho ltttsod qadumadon 
esa qiaiwwgel* bedeb "ytoentand dood eves meotia” 0 egnbbnt 4 . 

Pe yeeLasom ono 4 Jiesge BAB—— 
“882 To Yo afd 20 om og aalbofo%o ¥ dude bexevhtet: sme ¢Latvogm 

poof eLabvoqut gn vonobsexted .H egr0o0 oF ti 

a'iinbnetes eowebive wT Midmtalg to eeke od 26 odnobewred aa 
nequettt” .hgineh sew reve wel HE dorbaeT bedowetd st uoi · i 
onk nevis af? Io sinot sdtu00 sth Ye betoReeRd weow y | 












fyapar 








— See 
Ma 
J J Da: 


sbe 


instructions were offered by defendant. And defendant requested 
that the jury make a special finding in answer to the fellowing 
Questions "De you find from the evidenee that the lantern caused 
the fire which destroyed plaintiff's property?” ‘The court aub- 
mitted the question to the jury and they anewered it “Ho,” returne 
ing the anewer ae a speeial finding, im addition te the general 
verdict against defendant for $2950, as first above mentioned. 

Im the bill of leding or contract, defendant iz desiguated 
as the “Carrier“ snd George He Getsendaner ag the “Shippere" The 
mentioned shipment (14 herses) is “consigned to “leenor Getsendaner* 
and the mentioned “destination” is “Riverside, Calif.* On the face 
of the contract is the statement: 


"THI AGHRSMENT VITHAGSSTH, That the enrrier hing — 
fvrem the shipper, eubject to the elassifientions and tariffs 
effect om the date of iseue of this agreement, the live sieek 
éegoribed below, in apparent good order, * * consigned and ¢eut ined 
as indicatec below, which the carrier sgrees to earry to its usual 
place of delivery «<t eaid destination, * *,. It is mutunlly agreed 
* * that every service to be performed and every liability incurred 
in connection with said shipment shall be aubject to ali the condi- 
tions, whether printed ex written, hercin contained, including the 
-eenditions on back hereof, and which are sgreed to by the shipper 
and accepted fer himself and sie assigue.* 


Among the printed "Conditions" on the back of the cen- 
tract are the following? 


“See. 2 (bd). Unless caused by the negligenee of the 
carrier or ite employees, mo curriexy shall be liable fer or on 
accoumt of any injury or death sustained by said live stock 
eecasioneé by any of the follgwing causes: Overloading, crewding 
one upon another, esvaping from ears, Se OF Veos@la, Kicking 
or goring or otherwise injuring themselves or each other, suffo- 
@Cation, fright, or fire caused by the shippe ° 
agents heat or ¢ co, changes weather or 4 caused 
of weather or damage to or obctruction of track or other causes 
beyona the carrier's control." 

"Sees 4 (mje The shipper at his own risk and expense 
Shall icad snd unlead the live steck inte and out of the ears * *e 
im ¢nae any person shall secompany the live stock in charge of 


wae, he shali take eave of, feed and water the live stock while 
being transported, whether delayed in transit or otherwise, * *.+* 


On the back of the contract is a “separate contract with 
the man in charge of the live stocke" It is dated “Imperial, 






= 






— 
we at : 


hedesupes dtinnuetos Bet “senutavten eo botette S4iw ancl¥orneant 
ghtwellet edf of towenn wi yatbalt Letosge ¢ wkaw Ytuh * ‘tant 
beamen e acts tomedtve ext sock Satt ney oc” shed 
ocud dered matt Wystoqetg w'trteatade Reyottann Molde etht “ 
eirado: “0%” ab hetewane yatd bun Ceut ale 0d Moltadop HAs bosehi 
 avstey old of aodtkeba wr gumiaat Eslesgs # as Yowtrin odd gett 
svonet ines -sveda gat an .Ottnd cot itunevteb Ienlane sokoter 
hetsagtasd of daabactes gteaténes «¢ yabhed Yo Gite ede wT — 
, eet Metedgiie’ wit ag ee ee —— — oa 
cont add M2 ".TLEnd yohinvowiA” ak “agttonttand® oemetinem odd haw 
isaoiedede eae oh oaraoes siti * oe 















8 rely —A 
— 
Sasseu a 8 
*** ——— ‘ze | 
“oils — sitet z ef or i : 

ons L986 sine 2 Dz ie 
— ys oa ae, ora i 





—— hats ‘sams 303 am” i oom hae. ' 


-209 8 40 dood a) ae ) Mam. $2 bee" beaming ots —* a ale 


2* ————— A4 
— | iL bles —— — mia to om 
F RSAeS i. oO re 















ze a F PFS 
Pe — 


— x0 ax aot — * — 


** 6 of¢ to ene oo otal doodte ovik fly 


— Yuegqaotee LfLeds 
* —— to etse 
"et ® qukwaedda so a ab — — — — ceiigeste 


———— —E site to oad one Pe 
oO: Sodab ph oh. “stoose evkt odd Re eyrndie- wee | 
ext gor?’ ail a otis aff on view “ee ate q 


bam Sale me wise de woggisis aft  «(a) piven: wie 


“Le 


Nebes Jane 7p 1929," ia signed by Magnus Hanson, and ia in part as 
follows: 

“In consideration of the carriage of the undersigned upon 
a freight train er veovel in charge of the live stock mentioned 
the within contract, * * the undersigned hereby voluntarily assumes 
all risk of accident or camages to person or property, * *g and 
agrees that whemver he ahall leave ¢aboose and pass over, or along 


the care or track he will do se at his own risk of personal injury, 
. 


Plaintiff's theery on the trial woe that defendant was 
Aiable to her for the less of the horees ac 4 common earrier or 
inmeurer, and also «as 4 bailee or warechouseman. Defendant's counsel, 
in here secking to reverse the judgment, contend tht under the 
facts disclosed defendant should met be held liable as an inwurer, 
beonuse (a) the igesuamee of the bill of Anding is met conclusive to 
eatablish a delivery of the horses to it or ite liability as a comuon 
carriery (») its agent at Imperial, Nebraska, woz not notified that 
the leading of the horses into the ear had been completed, (¢) the 
shipper had not relinquished control ever the horsess and (d) there 
wae insufficient proof of the delivery to defendant of the horses, 
ready for immediate shipment. And counsel further argue that “even 
if the common corrier relation existed it would have been incumbent 
upon pleimtiff te preve (which she did not de) that the fire was 
eaused by defendant's negligence beeause the horses were in the charge 
of shipper's caretaker." Plaintiff's undisputed evidence éisclesed 
the foliewing facts in substance? 

The Getsendaners Lived on a farm at Champion, Nebraska, 
about ten miles from Isperial. They were engaged in farming and 
the raising of cteck.s #Piaintiff wee the owner of the horses in 
question. Their fair, market value was at least the ow of SBPEG, 
the amount for which she brought suit. “arly in January, 1929, 
she was in Riverside, Califernia, srranging for an exhibition there 
ef certain of her horses which were then on the Nebraska farms 
®he notified defendant's agent at Imperial, which is the nearest 





Bee ste 


os ¢ueq mt al fue gmoemell nage yt bemgte af ",OSOL 4f tab eo dak 


* wolte’ 
sehen ea? te epabnog ait te metdiveitanns xi* 
—* ttrom Mgeta sehk afd 2 es er cra Ae 


— Moe tog et — —* 
——— ————— 


ai : 


aa8 tabustes ‘dede gow Labst add 20 erondé e’iiiveiel — 
xe wehri9 mons = en averest oa? 20 suok ald “ok vert of oldeli 
pfesause a anaheis ied snomenwodetaw 20 solled a av cate dete gtomant 
aad xo bem tatts bewdm0e qtoempbut, oxtt soxevex 9¢ gutdowa oxen ab 
vromwont me ee skdats ado of som pivots sabes too banefookd adve? 
82 eviswfomee dom wt pakbed te Lkkd ond Yo comumet eatd (a) — 
nowaop & na Ystkidelt at} to at of asured wld Ye yxovited « Matkdadac 








Sostt bothiven For cw eatlumdol Laleegul dm siege «tt (¥) tole ; 


eee {o) Aneseiamos mood dog xm ote ocak sensed nets te gabauod ose 
geste (5) ben yoowred adit seve Leataes bedatupsiter Jon tad equtita 
veonrest oxi? te dasbewtos a i a a 


ae 


— tnetd ounus vodldxwt Seunmow bat — gpaRbamee, wot ybeo 


—“ 


onra causud xvod ovad biwow gt —R nobiles webring —— ede te 
| mew okt od sosts (Ob dom O40 ode dolste) ore os vibtmbsls sag 


epiedo af? at oxew aon rod ote eastaged desnt Lpou 2! inobaeted Bud — 


boweloath wonsbiys “Recharge t ome a'rti data st | —5 






mt weaved of? Ye usmwe orf? aow ——— * — 
_ e00088 Te awe odd tueok ds enw sukev soucam gttat ited? snotguenp 
eet m⸗anm a — she — ⸗ sate Hote — * * wi 





Se 


shipping point to Champion, that she coon would ohip » earlead of 
horses from Imperial to Riverside, and requested him to precure a 
boxe-car for thst purpose. Defendant's agent precure the ear and 
had it in readiness for the proposed shipment, TJiaintify arranged 
with her father, George li., to attend te the bringing of the horses 
(14 of them) from the farm to Imperial and loading them on the ear. 
The horses arrived at imperial on cumday, January Oth, and, by 
defendant's agent's directions, they were put in defendant's stock 
yards, sear the depote luring Kenday, January 7th, George He 
Getsendaner and Nagnus Hanson (whe was to accompany the horses ap 
caretaker on the trip to Riverside) had convers:tiongwith defend- 
ant's agent ae te the details of losding the herges into the ¢are 
Because Both loading chutes were then being used to losd eattle 

fer shipment in other ears, it was aseertained that the horses could 
not be leaded from the stock yaxtat by gaié agent's directions, the 
portioular car inte which the horses were to be losded was plaeed 
at an automobile lesding platform, alse near the depote luring 

the day Getzendaner and Henson constructed partitions or etalis in 
the oar, cbteine’d straw fer bedding and otherwiee prepare the car 
for the herses. <4hout 7 o'clock in the evening, the bill of lsding 
or contract, above mentioned, was cigned and delivered te George He 
Getsendaner at the depot.  lefendant's agent said that the horses 
should be leaded inte the ear that evening, so that the ear could be 
moved out with the freight train leaving about 5 6' clock the next 
morning (January Sth.) Tmmaediately after the contract wae signed 
Getzendoner began the work of leading the horses out of the stock 
yards and losding them inte the car. Im this work he wau assisted 
by Mra. Getaendaner and Henson, and thereafter «ull of the horses 
were loaded into the care Some were tied inside of particular 
partitions and others not. Inside of one partition were plaecd 

hay and bage of feed for the horses for use on the contemplated 


‘ho beelues 4 Gide Minow mou eds dasid qitehqmet? of sale aniqgtia 
@ etmoorg od mid dedaoupes bus godletevhd of Lafxeqel sored saci 
bile ang ed horuneTy soy a tushee teu i Soak Geld t0% 46 — * 
——— vad — + erg bomeqorg oa⸗ nor ans baer at a ved 
Seroa ae 20 gutgetid add of tneste 08 4H eptoy catia oe valk Oy 
‘end oat oo pads gukbaok brs Lalxoqut ot meni si? mock (meds 0° MK) 
Ed pias gAdd yuawnal gyeban? to Lelvogul te ‘bovinas uscred eff 
foots otinebaotod a2 dq -oxow Yodd qunoidonerh "smog & iaabadtob 
oo al wetewth quiet CUsMAOL gyebnod galist  steqeb ose Yoon —* % 
we seated odd Yasqoss of naw dete) tnt Gigs” tio conebabaeed 
mbusts® Mélwansiteotevaes bet (obfevevtd of Glad od wo —— 
see edd efat avezed add gabsood Yo eliesed vile 02 on sted whine 
okites heel oF boy pated meds wrew eedude gab sool nied oudavet 
Biven nested off tort nee $2 gates vedso a2 orcatas ot 
odd oul ieentd admeme dtnw xs Wetttay vote wt wort ‘poten sd fom 
 Sepalg saw bubsok od of evew wonted edd Mokdw oth ts tatvoldeay 
ii ollade vo emeliiiceg Sedensvonee aewtAl baa xbtbese 
em oft becage7tg catexatte bre galobed aut wete sein ate weet ell | 
arth int to Lote enld ypaltkove ade af MoeKo ty T seid “as rratt eld net 
+a Sgvesd of doreveLed Do SomgPy cow ytemetinem veda ssostttany 0° 
wawxett att daitt Sine droge atéanbietet .dequb ont va omakeNR 
od Aitteg ine edi Sos on yymbnove Jadt tom ase Ont bebaet oa ktwada 
axon oct sioalo'®  ivoda ytvect miavt isfghext ole daiw two bovom 
bemmia new tostiney si? meé2e Upcatonaed (08 yunitia) yakeewm 
hogts of? to sue soured esis gather L to Avow ead moped tonebeoased 
beofutene oor oe Xuew olds at yea om? oot omds pebbuek bem abmay 
— Ee a 

— Meluahiceg to obiack bekd szow empl stee odd odme ‘behaek oxen 
bopaie stow maid téroq om Yo obtant stom wumtde han anetéstoxog: 

| wild 0 OOH THX asamed ad <od seek Ie ogee a 












































264 


tripe Inside the car also were placed bedding for manen and a 
trunk, containing his belongings and medicine and bandagee for the 
herses+« In aveothor part of the ear was plaecd a water barrel, to 
be filled with water for the horses. “hile the lending was proe 
gresnings, and beenuae there were no other lights in or immediately 
around the car, a lighted lantern was hung on a nail inside the 
ear neat the centere Finally everything wae in resdineas for the 
contemplated trip, except the obtaining of water to £111 the water 
barrel. And about 10 o'clock, pe me on January Tthy after several 
empty cans hed been obtained «t defendent's depot, Mre and lirse 
Getzendaner and Henson left the ear in an autoetruck te obtain water 
to put inte the water barrel. “hen they left, the lighted lantern 
was hanging in ite plece, the car door woe open anc the gang plank, 
connecting the car with the loading platform, wes still in places 
turing their absence o fire saterted in the eor from an unknown couse, 
resulting in the burning or suffoenting oné killing of 11 the 
hersee. The Getzendaners and Hanson, during the progress of the 
fire, returned with the water in their suto-truck to the scenes 
They made umeuccessful efforts te save some of the horses. 4t 
that time the Lighted lanterm wos still hanging on the neil in- 
side the care 

Censidering the pleadings and she evidence, subctantially 
ag above outlined, we are of the opinien that the jury were amply 
justified in returning the verdict that they dic againet defendant, 
and that the judgment of the court should be sustained om the theory 
that defendomt was liable, as a common carrier or inourer, to plain- 
tiff for the less of her horses. Im speaking of the liability 
of common carriers our Supreme Court in the early case of Figher ve 
GLisbees, 12 The 44g 550, anids “They are held liebie for all 
damage te goods intrusted to their care, unless the loss is 
ecoasioned by inevitable accident, not brought about by human 






is Wi inbesiat' ‘da’ ‘libibel? Bioith, Sabie BEEN wid Sate” UG 
edd 102 sogebdund ona ontutbon bah opeipanted ola —— i 
4% gfovind xobew « bowala saw too afd Oe ian’ a, a pe 
“neteg naw guitbaod off? e£td" «aneted edd xoh xbev tlw Barks * 
— E 10 at adiiplt e oa — bead Saaeel ban vantans « ; 
‘edd ebient Kian « #0 gaunt oo mrotuet hoagie & * lh tl 2 
ond ‘got sanist bao? wi osw daldixreve ‘Linh * ie walt tora 10 
sotaw aad — od tsdaw to gataledds ond dqennes wat w je tiie: ee ily 


knuevse ede vila ne ae om ag siento te Ok dmode ‘eek * fee 
ps eth 





















cet ins oxi qdogod atincbaotel to ——— — font anos | vos 


nedaw niside of dowtinoésa na at tao od Hol eit a tosnb 


pro dnak bedstuht oxtd eftok yale nests fest —J —* ab | seta 33 ig 0 
ota he giteg sl? bas mee enw took woe od ‘eat aii ni wibened caw 


sooale tet Eftee wow ereroate pet bast wit tid wa —* * * 
— ievecntios he mort too af? mb Wedevda’ wake ai — 
oft ike te yabitt eer eee ae eee 
6H} Yo acorgorg of! antiuh gnome bao etensbwends 06 
oieioe eH OF Mowtdeodue hei? at —X ote iste vere : : ‘4 
" ta setexed edd t5 ony ovoe oF otros * idl 
oni * od md — tines aaw must 


AT vais 





Leo | atte 


“ ybbitdals edd Yo gutstesge al a a — 
——— ——————— E 





— 


«Je 


ageney,» the public enemy, or the owner of the goode. It makes 
no differenee whether the carrier hac done all in his power te 
prevent the loss or nots his responsibility is «till the eome. He 
is the absolute insurer of the property against 211 loases, except 
thése occasioned by the cnuses above specified." In Porter ve 
Chiengos etee Le Coes BO tlle 407, 412, it in auids "The fact that 
the goods in the car were deatroyed by an accidental fire, would 
not exeuse the defendants from liability aa commen carriers, © ~« 
Their undertaking as common carriers helds them liable fer all 
losses, except those oecasioned by the act of God or the publie 
enemys” In 1 Hutchinson om Carriers (3rd Ed.) pps 109-10, see. 115, 
in discussing when the Linbility of » common currier beginas it is 
salds 

“Sut if the delivery be made at the warehouse ox othe 
Place of business of the carrier for as early transportation ag 
ean be made in the course of ithe carrier's business, and subject 
only to such delays ae may nevessarily eccur in awaiting the 
departure of trains, Vesevela, or other vehicles of transportation, 
or from the performance of prior engagéments by Hine he becomes, 


the moment the delivery is mae, s carrier as te the goods, and 
his responsibility as euch at once attaches. (Citing ame Tove 
ce , 89 Ille 244-2) * * Amd the gener well- 
settled @ isy that the liability of the common carrier commences 
yr and as 200m as the govds have been delivered te and 
accepted by him solely for transpertation, although they may not 
be put imsediately but are, at firet, for his own 
convenience and preparatory to theyoyage or journey for whieh they 
are intended, temporarily deposited in hie wharf or store room. 
In such cases, the deposit is a mere aceewsnory to the carriage, and 
does not postpone his liability as common enrricr to the time when 
they, ahaa be — put in motion towards their place of 
destination." (Citing North German Lieyd %+ Se Coe v 
111 Tile Apps 426. 


Ag to the contention of defendant's counsel, thet the 
iasvamee of the bill of lading in the present cave is sot conclusive 
to establish a delivery of the horses te defendent or its liability 
as & GCommen Garrier, we do not think thet the contention, under the 
evidence, in supported by the law. in Yaxoos ete. Re Cos ve Nichols 
& Coss 256 Ue Ss S40, it appears thet in Nevember, 1917, the reilroad 
compeny hed iseued to the shipper a bill of lading fer certain bales 
of eotten which had been loaded inte a bex car at a point in 


— * ont 30 J ed? te ee erm | * — 








Sqooxs — tautage xezeqoxy ‘eae we —2 otutoads 5 
— al ' *sboktiooge avede asanse aula bs waauaares ‘snout 





fone toxt oxi” shaw wt et —0* — LEI OR a 
bLuow sect Satnobiosa es vd —R osew m8 ons ‘at boos ae 
e* satel tree nese a6 YSiilerif£ aoe) aéasbaetea end sauoxs tou 
iia et oldai modd shied axeictiee —8 as lines avben inet 
. ebLdug edd te bod 20 gon ond yd Semvinacee ened? sqeoxe —R 
J · von 208-808 +04 (obi bus) ezesreed ae wosndeto du £ at — 


ats Bae a A phy 


ai a eantgod rolnise ——— * Xe whtidass ae atone ‘yaloevoa J 












— — — odd %h dul? 
. 3a. —— ystes aa teh ——— ole to 
tonidua bas qaeeaiaud a'xeltzay ai te series ald mi 
as ett putiions ai twoee “eLitaceeosn yu oa aynlab a 
emelfeadteqecats to aeioldey iso te gelscesy v comtene | 
sesmeced af atid yd sdawmgegns teieg be eetasrre hae 
bra a2 boon Ba A BR i: as ee a bo ie dows al —— eed 


a6 ete | Ry ate 
denen sabtie® sone. oat te 
bun of bexorifeb an ev. — 
fon Yas Yotd syatosis te oll Ky A 
ao aid «6% aduri® te aets Sud 


Yots solide sok yourset 2 
eid — 
—— ————— 
— Ome ott od page Ame yl BA gg 


“asa a 0d bak beaks ana 

wilt tasks ——⸗ aténabmeteh te —— — 4 4 ee yee 
eeioulong tex el ens énaneng. stab yak 30 LER6 ot 26 samme 
WiLidell eth so dasbaoted ed eonxed odd To -yrevited « daligaies o@ 
edd voduy guoitaedago ois Sod Antely ton ob ov gxateree mnsane #48 
BAMBI. +7 280.9% ode g005e¥ mi. ownk oat os bptuoqume at asomediyy 
heowktor ad g TL .redwovell af ded? axesggs of Obd +P oW BOS gaps 
aefed aietxeo wet pabbet to LLid @ tegetée ot.0F Reucat dat yomgeoe 

: OR EE 


ia he si 39 














“Se 


Mississippi fer shipment to a point in Tenneneeos that before the 
loaded car had been attached to any train or engine it was destroyed 
by fireg that a judgment had been obtained against the railroad 
company for the lose and that the judgment wae affirmed. In the 
course of ite opinion the court said (p. 546)s "But, at a station 
where there is a regularly appointed agent, it would be viously 
uirenconsble to place upon the shipper, after a bill of leding hae 
issued, the risks attendant upon the leaded esx remaining on the 
public siding because it hes not yet been convenient for the carrier 
to start it on its journey." 

Equelly without merit, in our opinion, is defendant's 
eounsele’ further contention that defendant under the evidence 
cannot be held liable as a conmaon carrier for the lows of the horses 
deenuses after their loading into the ear head been completed by 
Plaintiff's agents, defendant's agent (Beesley) was not notified or 
that fect. The contention igneres the fact thet Beesley, “hen he 
issued the bill of lading, knew thet during the evening the horees 
would be taken from the yarde amd losded inte the car by plaintirf's 
agents, because of his directions thet this be dome se that the 
loaded car might start on its journey carly the following morning, 
as desired by plaintiff's agents. (See Pittsburg, etee Ke Coo ve 
Jmerioan Tobneco Gos, 104 Se i+ Repe (Ey+ Appe) 377%» 378-9.) and 
we do not think there is eny substantial merit in counsels’ further 
contentions, that «hen the fire eccurred plaintiff's sgente had not 
sufficiently relinquished contrel over the horsen, and that the car, 
in which the horses were, was not ready for immediate shipment. 
Thece contentions seemingly are precicated on the faet that plain- 
tiff's agents hed not yet pleeed water in the weter barrel in the 
care It seems cleer to us that after the horses were put inte 
defendant's ear, as directed by defendant's agent, Beezley, they 
were under the control ef defendemt es o carrier. (See DLlineis 


oxit @toted Iaild yoonsenneT ak dedoy a of Ynomghde Oh Ragtbel dart 
seyertieh vow sf omluee zo mbaxd ‘yan oF inatondes mode Bad ‘eae beheiit 
potutton ate Pomtege Semketde mood tart gebinpowt, a tnd enw 
watt ot’ Shomer ooie dmiaghut odd Suate Be funk weld! Yok iegaine 
aatehia © 2s ¢tem" (008 sq) bhey sewee td dolnnge G22 Ke obtWOd 
elawelvdoed hivow f3 gthoke botulonqa “ltalinds * ot Sete ext 
ast Qathat to EEi¢ w 299% — od? noe ovakg od eXdanoan 
etd Ao puimtawor “ee bebsor ot? mogu sambeddda adel oft X 
auteune od sot dankwevaen aeed doe tow erat HF onvavie gniite’ ‘ebtdny 
* onot aet mo ane Oe 
——— at — um we Sansone emai —* . privet 
ueuvort ed? te avot es¢ teh “cobuneo eunne dan cnhiien ad ane 
CH bode Lynoe med bat woe oH? otek pittinal ahos? xs te gmamanes 
yo belthion fon’ ase (2stsvek) deme 6" — : * wpa att * 
——— 
aogred sad emooye, pas pacbewh doake mint — $e: di add bowne, 
a'Sitdutale yf xao ond edah oodonk — ste ot amt ae | 
eid instt 8 emmb of ata? nati anmbder i Yo ¢ — R 
saatexom gabon fos of? ean comme aah eo dusts aatpiie 80 poset 
AV a2! 2080 enmwdndths 900) sedsege otnniombase va canard as 
bo: (.@-808, NTE —XR ona) ogo J bot aaph apenas 
edie Yekoemvos it ¢tron kebductadee ye wh ‘vest tube —— 
Som bart udnoge ot tihdatsdg Sowmeow exh? oft mostw deel? sanokdmedmes 
ova oft jadd hue yageted mit rove Soxtmo dostelsontion videoiolTiae 
 stemyteie eta bommt te Yones dom wav gouew weetod ett dotdw mb 
mttel¢ Soto dock ond ao begavtoony ona Ylyuheoen emetouedags coat? 
as mi Lowted totes eat? mt xedow boonke dey dom dat adaoge wt tthe 
| Otek ty ot nonzed mele soF IA, tok? aM OF xan ameoH a. otd 
Yond ayoksovd gtmogs atinndneloh ys hodoewks oe _ tao nites 
siomtitt 099) .tebvese « 50 dandaoted te Lorene ade nobas one 4 















TERE a 








— 


Sentral No Coo vo Smyser & Soe, SS lile Sd, S615 Vratt ve Nodduny 
Soe» V5 Us “eo 439 445 Hnonibal Railroad vs Suifts 70 Ue te (12 
Wall) 262, 273+) 

Amd we do not thiuk that, because it appears that when 
the horses actunlly started on the contemplated Journey they vere 
during that journey to be looked after by plaintiff's earetaker 
(Hanson), it was incumbent upon plaintiff to show that the fire 
(whieh caused plaintiff's lows) resulted from the negligence of 
defendant or ite agente, ae ia argued by counsel. 

Holdings as we do, thet under the facts disclosed and 
the low applicable therete the judgment appealed from wae worrented 
on the theery ef defendant's liability to plaintiff as a common 
carrier or ineurer, it is ummecesuary for us to consider whether 
éefendant wag alee liable a9 © bailee or warchouseman. 

Yor the reneons indiented the judgment of the ecireuit 
court of May 14, 1932, for $2960, agninet defendant is affirmed. 

APPIRME De 


Senmlan, Pe Jeg and Sullivans Je, coneure 





aehiol ov tem F496 eS 0 fh! BS ane) DS soe av om oT —9— 

Sector Jade geneqys, 48 —“ —* Saas. s 00 ebay — sie ill 

‘Stew qodd Youwol Setaigenines alt so bedtate (Lhontoe 
Sedesoust a Wlislkeie yd adhe hetood —8 oF wnaut baal a"a% 

WUD Odd told veda of Witately coqe depdavort apy ca a 

Se epnepltgan odo mord bodhuaes (asok at Thies yo , 

sicunues 4¢ bungie ef oe soduogn at 
brs henokonth aden? ele unhuw datt Ob ow ao gph 
ieteetter aew sets feleeqge teomgoul edd abewnsa 





















2) AMER oe yet enetork Qe EEE wa ft — 
et a Ta oad amar 


05 sh oe ae yt SD Sloe 
5 ER Sees B.pet a ees h RS: EVE fate G UE a cP thay, foe tae, ha 


a “" te go 4 Ga Sage RNS. ER plan Fae Pec Re neta ine Oe 
a apie ‘ B RR A NTE ee Dama |. — ll 
t y © es, x ? 6 9 % 3 * ie te — 2 a pots iy » 
Se BRi SE Sp i ih. 
j ; ite Ys B b TR: Tee ay Sot, ⸗ %. 5 tote.’ Saaw 


— — he — a a or ee, & he * Paz Fite — sy i 3 
od AS SS bogie Bp cans Bese yh ieee i gy tity ie 










A HUE He. gee pemead wae —X 
Tae Bred cht te ee site 6 Sate: rene Gries 44 


ay Fey, oem Rept avacwe mo? eee - 


* 
ee 
* 












36353 ra 4 
is (} 

THERESA Me GORTON et ales f ‘ 

Appellants, \ 4 

Ve 

| APPEAL FROM 
VILLAGE OF BSVAELY, a municipal 
eorporationpy SILLIAM Se MAXWELL, CIRCUIT COURT, 
president of the V g Cry 
OF CHICAGO, @ munied corporat ions COOK COUNTY. 


MOKAIS SLLGA, eity collector of the 
Citys amd GeoRGS FF. HANDING, 


wiser 861270 1.4. gag 


MR. SUSTICR GRIDLEY DELIVERS THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Om November 10, 19306, certain property owners filed a 
bili im the ecireuit court of Cook coumty to enjoin defendants from 
collecting a special ansesoment levied by the Village of Beverly 
te pay the cost of grading, curbing end paving certain atrecte 
im the Villages “rior to the filing of the bill the Village beeame 
& pert of the City ef Chicago by annexation. On Vebruary 5» 1951, 
the court allowed certain other property owners to become co- 
complainants ané ordered thet the 6111 be amended by adding their 
names ao such. To the amended bill al) defendants joined im a 
general demurrer, and on June 17, 1952, after hearing arguments 
of respective counsels the court suctained the demurrer and dice 
missed the bill for want ef equity. The present appenl followed. 

The salient allegations of the bill ere ae followst 

That during the year 1926, Harold J+ MeZihinny and 
William &. Maxwell formed a syndicate for the ee of purchasing 
and subdividing « tract ef land (deeeriving it), containing about 
34 aeresg that the tract was chased and aubdiviced, and the title 
te the 558 lets waco taken in 4 a eertain bank, ac brunkan; 
that thereafter contracts for the ¢ of seme of the lots were mace; 
that MeSlhinny end Moxwell retained a eertain reversionary interest 
im the profite and unsold lots; that in the contracts of sole of the 
lots the trustee reserved the right toe pave the strevts ané slieys 
in the subdivision, "the coot of which should be paid by the individual 


purchasers," that in the spring of 1923, Maxwell cnused plans and 
speeificctione te be made for grading, curbing ond paying the stre-ts 


————— 







giemon ‘eompere: 


‘go9 A. ON 


moet atmtmoned alates 09 levee deed Yo fae cto ed: 


cbewollet Leeqan taone rg oat aohape ae dies Anat thee a oad vos 
tawellet a» wxe Lkid ost Ro otmbtegetia Smetinan eft 
lh magnon nell bkotah .88UL xaey ad? © 
gelisade tag ed “ot otaehbegn a boars 
stwodsa guiaiadeoo —( ak — Seal to soand 
teh? of? bas gbobtvibdie — — 
feesewss ve alnad —— a wd é wd — naw 


nub ond ‘a “d —9* od bivede Seine te Faust ote. 
doh amad heonee Atonnal ghaei: th Qatens. neh des 
atveste’ ele yaiveq bee yal dur —— —* 


~2e0 


and alleys, advertised for bide for the doing of the work and 
individually entered inte certain contracts therefor; that about 
June 23, 1928, the work was commenced, and during July, 1928, 

the “greater portion" of the work was completed; thet om July 1G, 
1928, a petition was filed in the county court for the incorporation 
as @ village of said 84 acre tract of land and certain adjacent 
territory; that on July Slet, the esleetion on the question ef said 
incorporation was held, and on August 29th, a deelarstion ef the 
organisation of the “Village of Beverly” was filed in the county 
courts and that on October 2, 1925, officers of the new Village, 
with Mexwell as president thereof, were elected. 

That on October 19, 1928, a recommendation for ing» 
curbing and paving the atreets and alleys of the subdivision was 
submitted by the board ef loeal improvements of the Village to 
its Beard of Trusteesg thet the werk proposed in the recoumendation 
to be dome wae the some ae that already partially deme under said 
sontrects with Moxwell personally; thet on Octeber 27th an 
erdinanee for ssid grading, etes, work, baced upon said recommendation, 
was passed by the Beard of Trustees of the Villages; that on November 
10, 1925, a petition was filed om behalf of the Village in the 
superior court of Cook county, asking for confirmation of a special 
aesessment, based upon gnid recosmnendation and ordinanee; that 
publication ef required notices was made in the “Greater Files 
Genter SJewe, & nevepaper published in the extreme northwest corner 
of Seok countyy" that the publications, while made “for the purpose 
of literal compliance with the statutes," at the some time * t 
diminished the possibility of any of the property owners, or parties 
interested, in the subdivision from hearing of or recviving any 
notice of said proceedings” that Kuxwell and Meflhinny caused the 
general taxes for the year 1927 on all of the lote im the subdivision 
te be paid in the name of Mellhimny, “for the purpose of having his 
fame appeskt as owner of all the property of the subdivision in the 
tax recorde of Cock county, <0 that the notice of the application fer 
special assessment would sent to him as to all of the lets, and so 
that in this y= F ptr ay compliance with the statutes of the State 
might be had, # at the same time the true owners of said preper 
would mot have notice, or means of knowing of, said assescmenty* tha 
Maxwell, as president, knew that Mcihinny “was not the owner of 
the property," and kmew that the rensen for the payment ef ssid 
taxes in Meflhinny's name on 211 of the lots in the subdivision, 
“was to defeat the true purpose of the ctiatutes of the State, re- 
guiring netice te be sent te the lact tax owner;” and thet, “as 
the result of the fraud of said Maxwell,” complainants did net know 
thet a Vi ha& been formed in the be ten | or tht an 
application for a special assesament had been fred in the superior 
— and thereby complainants were prevented from discovering the 


true Be 

That on January 5, 1923, a judgment of confirm-tion of 
the special assesment was entered in the superior court, con- 
firming the same as te complainants’ property ae well as other 
property im the subdivision, and that the “first —— 
complainants had of said ceedings “was in September, 1930, 
when bills for the first tallment of the sssessment wers 


sent to them." 

That complainants are the respective owners of certain 
lots situated within the Village of Beverly and within said 84 
acre ivision, and “were euch cenere on and Sovember 10, 
1928 (fete, the day petition for the confirmation of the 
assesament wus filed), and have been such owners since that time,” 
as shown by an attached achedule made a part of their bill. (in the 
schedule certain let and bleck numbers are set forth opposite the 





bets sitter off te pried odd cot ehld set hoalkiuerbs 
diode fad? puetorsdy adewstdoms algtcos oink bovedse 88 
AAna qguyivt guluvs tae yhoonumes saw Atow add et eant 
ok Yuh we duds thatetqawo aaw axow af to *moldueg —— * 
tohimegreoes els tet sumo yee os ok deLLt eax dali 8S 
 iteeehbe siedxos Sum baal to toautd oxom OB bine bo o 
Slag te moldnesp et? mo moidoote oA ig oo “ine te. tam poe 
om) % maitotaioeh o@ gtPOR Sewge mo bus ehhad eer aehd 
osnweo ote wi batt amw “ykawyel * ye ads Ye. aolsonle. 
evaalliy vou ade to atten? Ye eBROk as tededeo we dais bas —* 
—⏑ä.—— — Bg Bree 
a saSa BO * ——44 
aow moicivibdye eit te eyelis bua —— ‘omens Betts 
od opelii’ ett? to nénemsvengal Lowel to nawod wile ol booet 
wMisaseanspoct wis at hazeqesg Maew af? dastd gesvtewst be & 
Shen tebe onobh yilabiueq Yoeeela fads wn ——— sid wow ¢ % 
— fe 2393 aedeted me gad eens dete * 
etoliaboenugoes than swage hoead gxtvow yo oto —8 oreg Stew 20% — 
‘todheoves wa dad? gogelilY ed? ko aeedgirx? rem eas yet 
O08 BE ogaliiY ens Yo Wieled me Sef2% anw nolgiveg a af . 
Seloogs » ih mekicnatinos «ot guildne «yiasow * to s2e60 | uk 
tai? joonenttove bis welidabmormeeet bion becad » ixemensaae 
eelit tegserh” eff mk ofan eew goriziem sextwpot ‘9 aot deol ide 
gemsee domutiver oxendme odd mt Seulyhision. seqereaen 
oeoqgumg off tok” ohana eLisie gunelisoilcng ould sastd 
* omi’ omen: oid ta “anedatate oft Atbe eomal 
uo —— “wy gatrouwe yYouegeng eff to yun toe gis 
Ti gatwtooes oe Te paitems werk tiphely pa eS : 
ofS beaten ysetkditod bas Ifewxe gould 
mlaiveivive ofé wi ate ait 6 fife me TROL *— ye By —* oan 
etd gatvad te saogqisay edt sok" «worth tied : 
madd wh waloivitdwe off 20 tiuegeny add ring Age othe pens “touqqe a 
20 ttaidneliqags aid te solve off galt oo g¢daveu Mend Yo ebuooes xed 
on tna gated ad# te die of af mia. of den of Giger Jnremesoona fea 
easel ot? 20 aadaiads wie ditw eemniiquan tolite A sagt ow aide 
“trogen. bise ta asengs ered ode * ie oft ga of het 
Sasi? “qdrwmsgease Sine . te geiworst to ameem 2a yoeltom ovat fist 4 
0 wane afd ton sow" yomidiicok dads wood a fue hhaeny aa gh Les 
Bion to doeaysg afd tot meecot odd told wot ban * — 
ewoheivibews oié mi adel odd te Léa me ons of bare 
ye Fane aus Yo eedudatn ed? Ye ogequny ay 
* gtodd kaw “pronwe xed dead ata. of dog big 92 * ete 
won fen 646 admotiaiquen “yliewxell bine — or * *« 
me godt go ,yxediuned oft wh, Some — 
soixoqus wif mi bask? seed faetk sas arasres 


end geivovenss& aps bedaeyeng pve — atl sae —* A'S : 


29 Meliomcliogs to sawmpiok a mt & ¢rewieh tad? 
NOD ,@iweo TOL tegee re 32 44. oir dao — — tank 


Sette 20 stem 00. jee o's 
ar a 




































SS 44 a Fen bart’ 
* oad ai tate 24 Jc 9ge wy 
Nl ese ic Rea, — tee 


gietios Be atoowe eer sonar. —* ‘ete “eters 


| MB bien middin ban ylroved aged he 
abh * bem wo. —— 
aie ke — etd xe 


38* ohare Ewa adi tah ubEih dog boli? exw dorm 
etitd ates Yo dog @ vham atvbotos —— ; 
ake neneenee, As Joq ore etedene dood bas sok magne eine 


“Se 


mame of a particular complainant, but the respective times when 
title was acquired are not stated.) 


That the special agsesoment levied by the superior court 
against the reapeetive picees of property “is absolutely void and 
ef ne force and effect whatsoever, in that it is an attempt on the 
part ef said Villiage te levy an ascesement fer work done prior te 
the ordinance authorising such work, and was not dene under authority 
of the Board of Local Improvements of said Village or under contract 
with said Boards” that eaid groding, etos, work “was in fact done 
prior te the ergenization of caid Vi e and under private contract 
between the contractors and suid Maxwell, individually and personallys" 
and that “such is not a proper subject for a special sescauent of 
said Village.” 


That notwithstending the fact that the special aavescment 
is void and of ne foree and effeet, the Village “hae sent out billa, 
sercking ent ef the first inetallment of said special sases ment 
which bi complainants have reeeiveds that the Yillage hae caused 
the books as to said asyeaement to be turned over to the defendant, 
Harding, au coliceter of Cook county, for the purpose of enforcing 
the collection of the first imeteliment of said sasesoment; that un- 
less its collection ie enjoined Herding will sell the lote <t tax 
anle and, upon failure of redemption, will cause deeds toe isaue on 
the lote and deliver tax titles to the chasers, which will cause 
complainants’ titles te the respective lots to be clouded and othere 
wise cause them serious and irreparable loss, etee 

a 

The prayer of the bill is im cubstemee that defendants, 
their agente and attorneys, be perpetuslly enjoimed from collecting 
er attempting to collect any of the instaliments of said special 
assesoment; that the acsessment against complainants’ preperty be 
set aside; and thet they have such other and further relief as 
equity may requires, ¢tes 

Counsel for complainants, in here urging a reveresl of 
the deeree of the superior court (which, after defendants’ general 
demurrer te the bill was suctaimed, directed the dismigsal of the 
bill for want ef equity) state in their brief: “The question 
presented is whether or not a judgmeat of confirmation ef a special 
agseacment, where the construction provided for by the assesoment 
was Gone prior to the passage of the ordinanes, can be coliaterslly 
attacked, and, if a0, whether or not equity will ascume jurisdiction 
to enjoin the collection of such assessment, where irreparable 
injury and « miltiplicity of suite will result in the event equity 


@oee not asvume such jurisdiction.” And counsel contend in sub- 


1) crests aouek? / ox one — dremtiaigame of Re emt: 
| —— shedady tom ore —— 


et? ud — — tat —— 
ree shee ogi mi” en —— te — ede i 
: “is ao tquodie we er oh a * —— 
ot oa @ned drow tat —324 ———— ogalii¥ IV btee ‘te ts 

—— — saatihe nbal Oana ow dose sabazcediaus peer ere Pa 
i ot rr) 7@ egalgt te 
ewb fo0% at ean? Seow grote * *— a ease vi bowie —* 












| Uitsaweseg” ons "han ecawedvibe) qfkowak Stas. hus 
¥ * 
— feleses a ison) —* 


—— —— edd 
i 2841 jee drow ae ae ods 


ome gocfd — 38 dine 2 dnemiindent durkt 
| wat ¢a wok add Lion Lite pnkieot ——— 
a tia OF whoes wane ILiw qwel. 


* @ hues od of & 
“qtimatentod seuld sommtedve mi at £bd ade Yo cxgeny eNt 98 


— teateim'ntinsngmy 06 eine ta hn all 


fatoaqa ben Lo siusmlindunt ott Yo ws soolfos of aabiqnedés %9, 
ad Yiroqous ‘edwemindquon dentage ssomegsaee ee Ansit —E 
ed 


— —— tea tones toe. 
Peete 






——— notte ehokite) swso0 —R etd 5 
od TO Loanimals ede detoouts yhomtatoue aay sake et: ot evans! 
tatiaous ofl” t hobud toate td ohads (yawos to teaw x0% Site 
faiveqs 2 Yo wObisinxttnoe %6 ed tom xo settee ot Dodee oe 
Saosonones ont YS woe bebtveny nottoursa nee one oroite < an —* 8 











ote 


stance thot, under the footea as alleged im the bill, the judgment 
of confirmation of January 5, 1929, oan be collaterally attacked 

in this equity proceeding, and that the superior court should heve 
overruled defendants' dumurrer to the bill and required an anewer 
and a hearing om the merits. Counsel, however, state in their 
reply briefi "It is true that the special ascomoment record on ite 
face appears to be regular - the irregularity consisting ef the paye 
ment of the 1927 texes in the name of NeElhinny, so av to have his 
mame appear as owner and then sending notice to him, and the fact 
that thas work bod alrendy been done while the petition appenre te 
be for work to be done in the future." 

The main contention of defendants’ coumeel ie that anid 
judguent of confirmation is rea adjudiests ef all objections and 
questions which were raised in the superior court gr which might 
haye been yaised, and that sald judgment ta not subject te collateral 
attack except for want of jurisdiction in the court to enter it, 
which mustappear on the face of the record of said superior court, 

After considering the ellegations of complainants’ bill 
and reviewing several adjudicated cases, we are of the opinion that 
the cirevit court did not err in sustaining cefendents' demurrer to 
the bill and diemissing 1t for want of equity. Im Meshen ve 
Granite City Park District, S47 [hls 364, 569-709 1¢ is anid: "The 
judgment of the county court was res odjudicata of all objections 
and questions which were raised in that court er which might have 
been raised. (Citing eases.) The collection of a special a ssesement 
will net be enjoined where the bill sets forth no grounds fer relief 
other than the growids which were available in the county courte 
(Citing Sosgrove y. City of Chioages, 255 ll. 358, 565, and Sumer ve 
Villege of Milford, 214 Til. 363, 392) * *. «After the judgment of 
confirmation has been entered in the cousty court the only objection 
available to the land owner is such as goes to the juriadiction of 





i ——— — — 


derecanha. od? CAE ot ak beyella an afon%.odt gabe _dadd oonade 
hedoetin yllarotelion ed ano seOOL 42 — ‘te ‘tip k doses noo te 
‘ont bhivadd dren tolwoque ace fost dna geithoovoes uainpe daua at 
“wewans xe berkupes hea bite old ot ‘tormtemh 9 Srusbere he bp, be bars 0 
. thede ab otade: sewer ‘ehsensiad - — 0 gabwod 2 ‘ne 
q » ethan oxon os, fromensvus Labsoqy ould tastt out ell a ‘tenn ges 
gg ack Le getetemen ythuetegewst old ~ makume * 
aum ovad of a⸗ oe voit Yo ema at wt woxod YORK sit YO ton 
fost ott bea quai, Od sot vom BRtdioe meuid bas tomo on anoaaca om 
ee stasqis melstiog ace oftstw seal mond Yoneae LA aron auuu ann⸗ 
. Heoman ost wl ones doy sixes Yor od 
hicw dort? wt Soar *atwsno2od 28 sokésosaon alan el? +. a 
na enortootde tLe Ye xtaekbobtn wa * ab aotomerin09 20 —2* 
"pia nde ai tne cena ed at coma ea seeup 
lawealiow of ddetdve tea ak saeapaut Stow tate bee ehoebain quad evad 
gtk sade as dyed — —— — 
atruve sedan ‘ote 29 dye oe ed to ORME gd tee Raditit- tue so tebe 
Libd Madswntsignos te eneitogedic alt Bio Biemy WIR oo scale 
tai? solatge sat 20 era ow senene budeohingha Levvves wut 
od w9TtuMed ‘séaekooted gaintadewe oh wee debe moe —— 
_2¥ Bettoed eo ran to. dita Yeh at Mittealew th ts L126 eal 
od” Ghias wh oh gOUHOSS ghOd a Lar —B——— —— i 
enokioogde Ke 20 adaphkvhtn 264 eau deee Yawon dfs to Sie 
svat doigin weidw ve Gtwee dad mi beatae oeiw dubte ‘euntouins tle 
fnomunene a deteoqa « 26 mozideiion as? (veuae getsro) beaker mee 
Difor wei shrwexg on dewet ado Skid end oiodw ioakegee o¢ san Like 
sPures Yiuwoo wid at whdakiavs stow doide — ——— 
oN foto Dan gSOG 4 HBL . Li Bes 4 te: ¥. 
Yo tnoneibitt sald -TOeD. W (ROE OE A LOO AL gs mit M30 — 
nos ———— 
Te nobieivatw edd of seep ue Mowe et nomwe bel eetd-0e — * 





































the county court to render the judgment of confirmation, and such 
lack of jurisdiction must appear upon the face of the record of 

the court in which the judgment war rendered." From the allegations 
ef complainants’ bi11 it appears that, pursuant te on ordinance of 
the Villnge (possed October 27%, 1929) and pursuant to the petition, 
filed by the Village im the superior court on Movember 10, 1928, the 
epecisl assezement was levied, and that on January 5, 192%, a judge 
ment of confirmation of the assessment wan entered. It is not alleged 
im the bill that there is anything upon the feaee of the record of the 
proceedings in the supertor court that comstitutes « good defense toe 
the aseesement. Indeed, counsel for complainants state in their 
wrief thet eaid record “on ite face appears to be regular.” Purthere 
more, it dees net appear from the bill that a complete improvement ig 
not descrived in the ordinanee. If, ac alleged im the bill, at the 
time the ordinances was passed, certain portiens of the work had been 
deme those facts were available as a defense to the property owners 
in the superioxy court from November 1¢, 1928 (when the Village filed 
ite petition) to January 5, 1929, (the date the judgment for ecoafir= 
mation was entered.) Furthexmore, the allegations of the bill az to 
notices being eent to Meklhinny tend te disclose a compliance with 
the statute as to notices 16 is aiieged thet compleinanta only became 
the owners of their reupective lots about November 105 192%, (the date 
the petition for confirmation of the assescment was filed.) It is 
not alleged how long before thet date they beoame the ownerse ‘nd 

in Springer y* City of Onieoga, 303 Ills 356, 360, it is helé that 
“the full compliance with the statute shown by the affidavit gave 

the county court jurisdiction of the property to confirm the saseace 
ment, even theugh the appellee, the owner, did net receive amy notice," 
dné the fact that there ave allegations in the bill tending to 

show irregularities im the publication of required sotices (ietes 

in a newspaper remote from the Village of Beverly) is, in our 





sie 


Yo Steve, ood te seat ats aege sagan tas Mobdotbatil te toad 
anettagriia etd govt “sbegebuet aow saemmbuh edd soldw nh drupe odd 
% woummibue wn of dmewetey gion? atecqge #h Lhid ‘atasal aiqase to 
qtotsiteg od¢ of sueuwseg due (ORL gVS eedota0 doogeq) wpellt¥ old 
odd g88GL gO sadmevel mo fren coltoqun oxtt mb sgeLiLV odd wh bekks 
wpowh 2 ¢@80L 43 Yrxeucel mo Sadd boo. ghobvel cow taommusane Soleuge 
hogelie fem ei 2i .bomdae now dmmoesses ot te mebtemettacs Ww tana 
gilt Ye teaont odd Yo seat odd nogu gubddyne wh ovedd dodt Like wld ah 
Of sunsted Seog a eeduai dena tail! fuses vobtegue self mh agetbooogay 
wied? mi ofade etuantelqucs set Leaszco »doubat, ...doomaupase amt 
ond “stademet of ef overqgs ovat mst ae" drecet bee dedd wohed 
el sameeren! aboleean © tect Lhd wld mux aoaa⸗ Sem aood fh ea ven | 
etd da 4 Shi ot mb bogulie ex ytl “sesmankixo ene tuk badixoneh dem 
feed bad dvor 26s Le emolss0q aiudson ydeusay eae eanank ise etd outs 
eran ywongetq ad? ef eumetsd a an oftnttara euow widow smedtt ened 
bo Lit wgekhat aff mode) BSOL 4OL zodmerel mack fees sedeouwn ails at 
wtltwos Ket ¢noagout of e846 od) geOOL 42 eon obv(nakst oq ads 
08 wb Site adt te euoblegello os? «otemveddiot  (ebexedat wew mod dam 
“Madw vonsttqubo # veoloeds 09 bnod wunlsited of saee gatew aeersen 
tuaved Md oimeniolqauow tetd begeiie et 82 ssotien of es: edutate ont 
stab cS) QRlOL gOL secre duods atol eetdosgner chende a ateimo ad? . 
ef of (,beLt? cow duamesnes od? to mohinmcttnes ret meheheog a 
hoon’ vetvave ad Wean wee obab one ound Hak wo te or 
Paid Aled of 22. ORS ydSo .AEI GOR gow ¥ 23 2 
vm, divebh tts ont ye mwede odadade ol¢ mode — * outs { 
cunoned wuld mst inoe Of EIERGONG Oe Ro WOLTOL Eh Wt oumOs YriOO Md 
*,ealton ye wheoot dom bib ywones ede ,coltegta any’ ‘atgeodd wave decom 
ad paksuod Lite ol? mt onelsagotio oxo onndd Sade toek ofa bad — 
so00k) soation Soztupet Ww metdantivng: asd st —— eal 
-) Wm A gat (elmore te opel st mon? stemon degeqiien!iEt 

















riley om ed ee ihe, 
wee Se oe 5 ee 


-be 


opinion, of ne foree us affveting the jurisdiction of the superior 
court to enter the judgment of confirmation of the agseasment. TM 
Village ef in Grange “ork we Mean, 352 Ulle 2565 S4iyg it iu anid: 

"The fact thet there might ye irregularities in the proceedings 
vyevere the beard eof local improvewonta, or the board of tristevn, 
ox in the publication of the ordimaned, did not deprive the court 
of juriscietion over either the cubject mattox or the parties. W 
ne objections are mace to irregulerities, omissions ond failure to 
comply with the statute, the defects are waived and the judgment of 
the court ia valid and het subject te collateral attacke" Ante 
we think 16 ie signifiennt that there are no allegations im the »ill 
te the effect that the particular tuprovement wae unnecessary, oY 
the agssencment execesive, or that complainants’ lobe were assessed 
for more than their propertionate share. nd it le apperent from 
the nilegations of the bi11 that when complainants signed sontracts 
for the purchase of the recpective lote, they anc each of them 
mew that the adjoining strests and alleys im the subdivision were 
te be paved, and that the cont of the work was to be paid by the 
purechacers, proportionately« 

The deerce of the circuit eourt of Jume 17, 1932_ dize 

missing complainants’ bili fer wont of equity, ia Sifirmed. 

: ARTIRME De. 

S@emban, P+ Jes amd Sullivams, J+» concurs 


om #4, 


is Roiount Lice a aN ieee, ly speek wee” ae et a ee, ae 
telisgyio eis le moldoloeiwl, ons ymltostis ea exe om te ameiniga 
th sttomnenga ot Te aebdvmd tee Ye adap — 2—— 





eaten ost ering. sae bth soonant 30 edt Ye settaclisug 
* J —— ast (SO t-diom gookeve odd toddie seve motduload 










ahs 
— 06d 6 euaisoystin ou on ood dase § 3 ‘ 
| © stteunsveraw aa suenmovo cape rauoketag | ats tals doom oe of 
| "heeeense etn adec tatasa algunos ea © “sovteawnns sasasapons edt 
— fhm ee sounds vdawmloregong tied? wad? oxom | 
iD RYE ORES 


ie ny 
etentsane boitgia — alegmoy nasty —* — ad » ** 


x —5 ie — 
ner anbRehwRbalve oats hd eye tte bers peers : 
| —v" * od of bl eae ial to" —* — bee 





























saith g80r (VE vomit to deded atiiekio WAY We ire — | 
— —— — E — 
————— 


ja eth: Sota 6 —E— oe ~~ — 
g et te wobeeh belie aes nena 
Py Bath —E Rete mae ¥ iy ne 
ette.t janie ere. OX soak ee * J 
Lake weae vig swt Sw wétiheetideg: ean as — E — — 


| > “Gea: yak Oetweee te epetey aie aepet obey aed 





36636 y 





GRORGK T. JENS INGS, 
Complainant and Appellee, 


Ve 


436 “ELLINGTON AVENUE BUILDING 
CORPORATION, MAX He BRAUM, Ie 
EDWARD BIGHKOY, IDA FACTGR, 
PAULINA Se PRIELGMA, CHICAGO 
ho & TRUST COs, ae trusted, 


INT RALOCUTGRY Ghia oF 
SUPRIGR COURT OF COCR 


fj 

7; | 
} APPEAL FROM AN 
| GOURTY, APPOTHTING A 





Defendants 
RECEIVER « 
BAK Ho BAA and Xe XBUARD 1270 1.A. 629! : 
Appe Llantwe 


Wie JUSTICE GRIDLEY BELIVIR LD THA OPINION OF THY COURT. 


Baged upon complainant's eworm bill, filed Movember 
Zip 19325 to foreclose « firet trust cecd on certain taproved 
real estate in Chicago, (Llinois, and upon complainant's motion 
for the appointment of a receiver, and after defendants had 
received notice of the motion, the court, on December 30, 1952, 
appointed John Be Kanaley au reeciver of the premises, with usual 
powers, om condition of hiz filing a bond in the sum ef 910,000, 
and complainant filing a bomd in the sum of $1,900, with sureties, 
to be approved by the court. Beth bonds were filed and approved 
on the following days ‘ubsequently, on Jonuery 14, 1933, by 
leave of court, an amended receiver's bond and an amended complain- 
ent's bond, in the same respective asounte and ay of December Sl, 
i932, were filed and appreved. On January 24, 1935, in saevordanee 
with the provisions of section 123 of the Practice Act and within 
apt time, Max He Braun and Is Edward Bishkow, two of the defend- 
ants, appesled frem the interlocutory order appointing the receiver 
vy the filing of a bond with the clerk of the Saperior court, / 


pre 





© Thee WRottoone rer 
“Sood  Taveo AeLAtvE 
“2 perrerotga pre 
aise 





— 
— oo 
es thie eh ay —9 


add Mey {O WOTETeO aay aemey ie yaneL hp mo sotsmvt.smm 


ie noone Koran ta ale 


beans Atte nme * aft * Soo oo mt , 
Rovargel shadtoo me boed searcd fonts « @ Baekaees 92 95% 
— —n— te ‘and atoaq s 2 acd sot 
~qRB@k gos — no atuice esd qnehdow adt Re pekdon Sovloaes 
Leves tt gamaimong edd 20 novlooey ne yoLauek 54 












v ————— — — 
—— me bus tage —8B bobavae ae 2 oxeo te ap a 
sf8 wemooe! to uo ban udawoms ovidooquon emma onl? mt ydned at — 
Seacbroves mi l 498 Greil oO sdovernng: time SOLED acet 
aiddiw ban go. vokésort ale te E80 molenes — ——— 
cbuvtod ot Yo owd ywoildelt Seewbl ot dria awe oil old gould age 
tovivcet aid yaiiaiogga tobte yrodunokretah edt mart bokeeque eat — 
e#muoo colsoqet ond Yo Maske ald ddtw bmod © Yo gabe ott we 








“Ze 


which was approved by that official, and on February 27, 1933, 
also within apt time, the appeal was perfected in this appellate 
court. On March 21, 1935, appellee's motion to dismiss the 
appeal was deniede 

The salient allegations of complainant's bill are in 
substance that on April 3, 1928, the 456 Yeliington Building 
Corporation (hereinafter ealled the Corporation) executed and 
delivered ita 500 bonds of $500 each, payable to bearer, with 
interest at 6% per annum, payable semi-annually, as evideneed by 
attached coupons alse payable to besrerj that the bonds, representing 
a total indebtedness of $250,000, matured at different dates; that 
four matured om October 3, 1929, and others of the first 100 bends 
matured ot six month intervals thereafter and until October 5, 1935, 
and bends Hoge 101 to 500, inclusive, matured on April 3, 1936; that 
te secure the payment of the bends and indebtedness, the Corporation, 
on April 5, 1928, «xecuted ahd delivered its trust deed, conveying 
te the Chicage Title & Trust Coe, as trustee, the real ecatate in 
question (describing it), together with all buildings and improves 
ments thereon, and “together with all rents, issues or profits which 
shall hereafter acerue or srise from sald premisesg” that the trustee 
accepted the trusteeship and the trust dood was duly filed for record 
im the office of the Recorder of Deedes of Cock County, TLlinoias on 
opril 12, 192%, (copy of trust deed attached ond mde part of the 
bill); thet bonds Nos. 1 to 36, inclusive, were paid, as well as ali 
interest due on any of the bonds on or prior to April 3, 19304 that 
bonds, Now. 37 to 44 inclusive, aggregating £4,000, and maturing on 
April 3, 1932, have not been paid and are in oefaultg thet en OSetober 
3» 1932) interest aggregating $6840, become due and payoble, and of 
this $600 only was paid, leaving s balance unpaie and in default fer 
aid interest of $62403 thet on October 5, 1932, also, bonds None 


oe 


eSO0E 4TS yuuredet mo ane gtalodtte tal? ys hovergye aew dobdw 
ateklouge wild at datostoug eaw Laoqge old yomkt tga widtiw este 
ads salmais o¢ golden n‘oelivgga qSt0L gkS dota 20 sfauee 
sheiaoh saw — 
ai ers {itd a dneukslqauws te anoliegelia sauhinn of: 
gaibitwl modanti£ey Ot) ond gBOCL gf Eig’ mo sorte — 
bea bhduonxs (meddotegxod of? bodian se dRueute zed) so teaxeqza0 
“dhe ‘gueted of ekdayy ydone 0083 ‘te eymed CO et boxevated 
| Wf Soomebi> on «kauncantan eLéaag eamame oq HO te serusént 
| Bathdmemonget gubmod od? sek? (xoreed 08 okdayng oaks adogues bodoatéa 
s feuded sored so borwdem 9000408RE to wnombaddaak Lntod * 
ao dol deakt / Yo exadte bas 4ORUK 4 todedeO Me bommten i 
acet 46 xodetoo fitws bao toPtastedd elevate isto xte Yo berwtawm 
fads 9oeer aé diag ac beawdan seviewlonk .0OG as Ink seo ebrod baw 
— alt * hee obued ecto ke — * owo⸗⸗ od 
mt Sede Lied ent (soteusd un god dest W Aen ogeoddo ond | 
eovergat tao ogatitkud tia Atiw cextdeges of ea" pabsttouse) —R 
delstw aftSoxg TO asieeh gedmex Lhe Kate ‘redidogee® bra ‘ tb ‘ature 
sotuund one dois “qaoyirry Siew wevt delete ce ow | 
hroseT tet POLky ytwh saw Noob gewte oat? wes qineoosaent ons ped ary 
Ho gudoms Lit atttare” Mead te ‘phasd ke teb290 08 osig * ‘waite ote 3 
“wale to Stag oem fitta bodondes ‘oun taxa no woo) eae 8 2 
Lia * ae «blag ovew sovinsfomt 408 8 £ a0 adao⸗ fasta 4 
donk? g0BGx 9 thaq of xontg 0 no abated a * (ene mo, ub te x 
HO Qik tid os brs 500.d8 pat anpocuya soviegont * ot te +n0K — 
sedoto® ne decid gtkuertoo wt as bam, en, sop 205,946 OE 
to bax evldayen be ost Bates seh —D— pataanoauna 































) 
Se 2 © “4 


wo Huwke b at bas — onatod a yatves, edteq gow, no — 
—— veda wee af rodeo? a9 m9 gods 2006EG To, 





head « Pe aeekeet * ow 


<3 


45 te 52, inclusive, aggregating $4,500, matured, were net paid 

and are in defaults that by ressen of the defoulte and the terms 

ef said trust deed the whole of the principal unpaid indebtedness, 
aggregating $252,000, evidenced by bonds Noa. 37 to 500, inclusive, 
together with ooid unpaid intercat of $6,240, and other interest, 
have become due and payableg that the trust deed provided that "in 
ease of default in making payment of any of said bonds, either of 
principal or interest, as and when the same become due and payable," 
or in cave of the default im the performance of any covenant or 
agreement therein mace by the Corporation, “then the whole ef anid 
prineipal cum secured hereby shall at once (without notice thereof 
to any person interested), at the option of the heléer er holders 

of not lees than ten per cent of the total of the principal of the 
then outstanding bonds, become due and paynble;” thot complainant 

is the holder of more than ten ped cent of the total of the principal 
of the outstanding bonds, and has declared the whele of said principal 
gum secured by the trust deed due and payables that the trust deed 
further provided that upon any such default and such éveleration 
being made, the trustee, or the holder or holders of one or more of 
the then outstanding bonds, might forrclove the trust decd that 
complainant, therefore, has filed this bill te foreclose for his 
benefit and the benefit of the other legal holders and owners of the 
bonds now outetanding and unpaidg that complainant has been compelled 
te advanee, for the protection of his lien, "“vyerieus sume for toxes 
and sestewments, tax sale, fire insurance," etee, and will be 
compelled to sdvanee other sums in and about the foreclosure of the 
trust deed, for which said sums he will be entitled to an accounting 
on the hearing, ete.g that the trustee has a purely naked title 

tes and no beneficial interest in, the premises sought to be foree 
Cleosedg that defendants “Mex He Braun, I. E¢ward Siehkow, Ida Factor 


| ve 
adwe Gon exew «binewtan .000.08 wabsegetaps yoviawtont «88 of @y 
muted ot tre ndfucted cfd to meawex ye dete Ptiveted mt wie New 
seuombeddvod? biagns: Legrentoy etff Yo eLorlw ede best deus? * 
atviawLoat 4008 Of Té seo edna ye boomebive . OOo; ER? pelbdagutai 
etsoxednt selde bas ,0de gS? Be douretnd Atoms Shae sitiw xosidened 
at” get? bostveny tevb vowrd odd geil? potdayoy Bue wh omeped Svat 
te ehh guts tw 0 i Rao a ia il 
addy the sub smoned emon etd meitw fen vin qasredat vo Leak bi 
go Camttowes ve ‘te eucnortetiag afd mt vaso od Yo wo aE 8 
Bis “We efertw ony meds” anotiotogzed ofd yd tne nieted Soomietge 
| Teswadd subvert tuedtiw) ome vo “Livda ydesed beter e ave Legtonthay’ 
wtwdiod so tober eds Yo mateqe add te gfoeddutodn! nomieg Ya Oe 
watt te Lagtemtay eit ————— 
 Eephonteq ails Doe fades ait “te dane ———— — evento —— — ot 
agt ud ag Sav Ye efortw ede orefee® ead tem gunned wze hetsauneen ents Yo 
boot Gaurd so) ancl? Toldeyer dae oud deed Sauxe estd YW homwose Mme 
tetteveloed down bes shueiod doww ye Hogs dots SebtveRy waittewt 
Re eum x0 oND 9 steGLod ue WALEt witt uo yuednetd odd yobum gator 
geal yboss dose ote sookowrot Mv yntemd pebbandudue mols out 
whet Wek Goefooeet a [SkE etd boltt daw yoretomte «teotbaigess: 
odd to atonwe ben atehhet Loged seelto att tw 22 tases ats tits oe toned 
heileqeee coed act tanmtalgee Gadd gatageur bees RBC E C98 3 
wexnd xe come auobiew" ensit #4 te aietesestong sie wot » | 
ef Sitw fete g19te “—oonamath wxkX volns ~sd yadnomnssan ta * 4 
et? to Sexeodiore? Seth cemdie Gow 2" emmeiy — eonavne 02 boLseqube 
gelinwors ns od wekeline od Litw ot saya Bow Most GOT y heed Saeed 
 ahdhe bees YLowy # wah onsewté ect toule ees epnbwued ts. oo 
norot off oF sslywon vordmony wats gat Sebeegal Latorewet ve bie yeh 
woson wbT qioaitisie wewwbic VX qittarett’ ok st" cteatio ton tate Yanan 


— * ce 

























whe 


and Paulina Se Drielama," by certain conveyances, become ami are 
"the ovners of the equity of redemption of said promises," but their 
title and interest therein ia subject and subordinate te the lien 
of complainant and the indebtecness hereby sought te be forecloseds 
that other persons, unknown to complainant, claim interests in the 
premises and they are made parties to this bil) by the name and 
éeseription of "Unknown Ownerag" thet thely interestu, if any, 

are subjeet and subordinate to the rights and lies of complainants 
that the premises sought to be foreclosed consist of a lot, 50 x 
166 feet, improved with an eight and a six story brick building, 
containing 71 apertmenta, - 44 of which are of 5 rooms and a 
kitchenette cach, and 27 of which are of 2 reome and kitchenette 

and dinette exchs equipped with steam heat and clevater; that 

the premises are commonly known az Yeas 454-436 Vellingtom avenue, 
Chiesgoj; that the lend and improvements “sre geunt and ineufficient 
security fer the indebtedness secured by said trust deed herein | 
aeught te be foreclosedsg” that “the fair ond reasonable market value 
of the land and the improvements thereon io 222,900," anc that 

"it ie necessary for the protection of complainant and the other 
bondholders that a reeeiver be appointed for the premises in manner 
and form as provided for in the truct deed und for the purpose and 
with the force therein specified." 

The proyer of the bill is the ususel one in foreclocure 
eases, including the prayer for the sppointment of « receiver 
pendente dite, with the usual powers, and espocisilly to collect 
the rents, issues and profits of the premisen, pay taxes, redeem 
from tax sales, etes 

In the trust deed, made a port of the bill, it is 
further provided in substanee that, in ense of the foreclosure of 
the trust deed, a receiver may at ones be appointed to take 
possession of the premises, with power to make necessary repairs, 


oa ban cmuged queomeyevase aledxio qt “eammteie® 8 ankfvet Site 
sheds sud “yesaimory Glen tw HOldgaedes Yo Yinps wad ko auomes este" 
(MOLL add @2 etesibredim one degisie at mbeteld ¢unxetmd dete ofthe 
thoasLloorw? sd ad tiguen ydeued apeqoeddnont add aan dnantntqnes Yo 
3 ori? mi adpeteget mito sinectalqacs ef momsion qanee reg nemse: tril? 
bate omen add yd Lild ald? of aobdtoq eon gum yeds ome medion 
aie Mf gedsaxodnd siewe daly “gexeae mromiad" te mod egh rose 
‘Poaonisignon To meds hue adaghy oad od edentovedoe tae soshtse ere 
x 08 gtak o te deleneo Semekvored ed ot deigtoe asetmerg oe dade 
@ bac amoet £ — — 
——— xe sodse to VR bow gions ebcencated hit 
farit quodavefo fun Sav aoodn —— 
‘taptetviest tus guns oa” admenovorqah ban Seok ete sold sognonsye 
nied doal teuxd dkea EE heres evembetdobnd wt sok Es lampom 
auloy sexta oldanonset daa tist eit’ gosld "pheneieetet of of sdguem: 
Sods ona "400049885 ak moored? stepmovergait amd dae baal ode: te 
tetide elt one saontaLqmor te meddonfomy od? 0% viessepem.gt gto 
Tone Bt svete od? vO? Sodatecia ed HIPS. SAF J 
eum rete! os? 0% bas deeb feet aa? wt vot bobtvort 
- ommoioare? ges on tauen ode 8 ante * 3 — J rs - — 
ww⸗ꝛ ye. swomintogus od? vot royerg val? gabnvLont epeno. 
tositos os Lado oque ee ⸗x*oxe Lausu ode sate cali adaot ; 
moobon — Cae seoedmorg ont de athzosg te a * — 


ek sk —* odt Y9 #1og # ham yhood dawnt ot 1 
) gobs ieee eet a 


* ewaelooret ‘ete %0 eee ak tants conssudee a 5* nat 2a 
Tae tied ee A ts me 

adtat et bodatouge od sone ts ya wvivons | heed os wee es 

S Sach? § SURE 


saxiogot ttenasven Aam os ‘se tbe gomtmnng ot 20 pia ot oe 




















o5e 


to borrew money, to collect the rents of the premises, to pay 
taxes and special acneassments and ineurance premiums, etes; and 
that the appointment may be mace by the court "without regard te 
the solvency or insolvency of the person or persons, at the time 
of tho application, who are linble fer the debt veoured, and 
without regard te the then value of the prenises." 

Four days after the filing of the bill, complainant 
made his motion for the appointment ef « receiver pendente Lite, 
but the motion was several times continued, and before the entry 
of the order of December 30, 1932 (here in question), the individual 
defendants, Braun and Biuhkew, and cleo Ida Poctor, entered their 
respective appesranees by solicitors. The record does not disclose 
thet any appearenee hed formally been entered for the other part 
ewner of the equity of redemption, Paulina S. Irieloma, but does 
disclose thet she, with defendants Grew and Bishkew and Ida Pastor, 
joined in a motion by their soliciters that the hearing on the 
question ef the appointment of « receiver be contimiecd until a eer- 
tain days 

im the order of December 50, 1932, the court, after stating 
thet due notice of the motion for the appointment of = receiver had 
been given to all necessary parties, and after making findings in 
substantial accerd with the allegetions of complainant's bill, 
appointed esid Kamaley as receiver of the premises and cirected 
that the mortgagor and the owners of the equity of redemption turn 
over possession to him, and thet he thereafter manage and operate 
the premises in such marmer se will best conserve the property, 
ete. Im the order certain usual powers are given to the receivers 

Between the date of the entry of said erder and the filing 
of the appeel bond (January 24, 1953) with the clerk of the Superior 
court by defendants, Braun and Bishkow, there were numerous proceeds 
ings in the cause. Certain petitions were filed by complainant and 


—— error 





WT OF gaeainetg odd Yo admox edt socifee oF «qpnem worzed oF 
OF buegee tiodthe” gues ods yt chan of Bam, tneainiongs ont Sadd 
amt? wed Ga geoeteg 49 meats a8? Io Yanevioant ce yonevton walt 
brn ghorusen fo: ont tor sidakt ove odw arottiontiqga ads Xe 
“aggdeeng odd to sudev mod? atts of — 
rout a lauacz· Aldc of? Yo zeetn Cu et sede myeb awel,. nn 
- gQPhh eiaedsog asvinoet » ke tmemiateggs odd et ann onan 
Netw ett eseted bee ehaumtineg samt? Lexeyen eow coksom est tad 
Lasbtvinnt est y(eolteoup ah oted) SCE 408 wedeoas te sobze oat do 
sted? hexogus zoforT abl gale One qmuniied@, dua mor yatnsdaghal 
enokockh ion aceb brgoot ofT evedieiioes yt asane a 
up rede ad? aah hotest wood ylLeoet. — — 
me0b tad qammfeiel o8 ariiuxl gmehtqavdes to gi kupe obs. to seeme 
sadec’ abl hen. wodiate bee must ednabaeleb side gaan sacl exokonah 
gale me grdcsod ont Jokd eothodtos stots qd moktom a * 








— aeons so at 
————— — — ——— ee 


bet revkooer © Yo suomintoggs edt wok motion att te — 

| ad egikoatt yrtken reste bax sbtdiag Yseonseen Sie 03 worn weed 
efild s'imentaigacs te smeitepetie wilt aer baeron tatoaasocuc 
 hedoerh> bee etalhmeuy ont ‘te xovsowt ao Xoan⸗n bine bedategas 
md mob sgmDres Le Yeti anid 2 wusiwo oud dno sogeRsion ont dads 
etexusqo bts Speman tesBectede af dorks sae gate OF wo caonseg Oro 
avsueqeuy ond eyreomes dg0d Jilw ae. — — 
exsviovet off eo mevig ete aiewoq Lavew nietxso tebe ade at “ste 
BRLLIY ail? ban tedze ble te prime edt te bdo aM aoowhee 
wobroget ef? Ye Axoko ext stetw’ (280E 406 yrauinat) omod Lavage * 
~hoonoms GNOME SON oocd yueiilArE Min Mies .odundeteno YE suites 
haa duatielqsoo Yo SoLtt oxow umeldtieq mbadwed seauae ait ab 93 a 






— —*9 


-6e 


the receiver, whieh were answered by the Corporation, defendants 
Braun and Bishkow, and defendant Idea FPactore On January 17, 19355, 
Braun and Bishkew filed their joint and several answer to complaine 
ant's bill. On January 18th they filed their written metion "to 
vaeate the order appointing the receiver and te remove him from | 
office.* This motion wae supported by their petition “in the satwre 
of a cress bill.” On the same day there was a hearing on the motion, 
resulting in the court entering an order denying it. There is eon- 
tained in the present transeript « certificate, signed by the judge, 
of the proceedings om said hearing of January 1@, 1955. It cone 
sists of arguments of counsel and collequy between them and the court. 
apparently the court refused to hear tevtimony of witnesses, offered 
by defendants in support of their motions 

One of the contentions urged by counsel for appellants 
on this appesl is that the court erred in entering the order of 
January 183, 1935, denying appellants’ motion to vaeate the order 
| of December W, 1932, appointing the receiver, and te remove him 
from office. ‘Ye are without power ox jurisdiction te censider the 
contention on the present appeal, which is solely from the order 
appointing the receiver, under section 123 of the Practice Agte 
Under the portion of the provisions of thet section relating to 
receivers, appeals may only be taken from an interlecutery order 
or deeree “appointing a receiver, or giving other or further powers 


or property to « receiver already appointed. 
anether contention of counsel in thet the court erred in 


appointing the receiver, becouse Paulina ‘+ Drielema, one cf the 
owners of the equity ef redemption of the premises, Was net notified 
of the making of the application fer the receiver and did not have 
an oppovtunity te appear and object to the appointmente © find ne 
merit in the contention. The record sufficiently @iseloses that 


iy ds mh. 


stusbaored ——n——⸗ ods va 7 oxew hota eweviovor tt 
s8E0L QV Yraumeh 69 stede0% abt —— ban eronldat & baw nite 
enielgnes oF rowan Leseren eas sadet toes bed? wedi bam mun 
| ef" motion megitan stosts Doktt yess Peres Pawan at Atu⸗ a! $a 
ont sabe vrewes ¢2 bmn covkooss os gubsntogge ware ata stoonr 
| ourten ats mi mobedieg Usa⸗ xa beanoqace saw wot ton abs? *eeot the 
aot aom sats Bo gabon a aan oxedlé Yab soem ost? mo tthe anew 8 to 
~aoo ef exemt «8h path yet <obw ge gubxodae — wat at yabtivows, 
— ot YG bemgto ardent itera & igsvecaard neem eeu mt em a 
oe 4% pG80L 484 yxosmel te yatoed Stan me sgutbe 
etuwop od? tna mod seowded wrpelion ban heawwoa za stooge Ne afore 
«hee She aeepagens te ke vaeat gae⸗ x?aa — beostex —— wake 





i 










| a Ra ae Nee Ne ee 
J * J 
— 


— x03 sonra Ye begs snot énsseeo — on ahead 
ꝛo xad zo aa? galspdne at berse ¢weo oft dadd of teeqga ebtt wo 





Bij 8k 
eben ond eiagay O? woh fom *mtaal loge pet geed J — ss aie 
Bid svomex of tes guevhovet OM gabimbeqga @tOt 908 todimn a mnan ·es 9 
—— * 


mi? xebigcge of meldotbalse, xe teweg saaattiw ota oF spoke mort 
_ Soho eslt pect yefon nt stotee cleogys sueeoTg ada 0 ok @ i * 
s$oi eodsonnt ad? Yo £0L aeidvon xohaw — ——— oats baat 






— — 
ye nd takers shia" daa to amie tvorg pale * met 08 ould — 


Pe 
— — —— oa was asaia⸗ od ‘ano So ekeocea — 


J— — LR 
atoweg routw? xo toto unbvtn x9 qtevicser 2 auldate g” eemeb xo 
Ka ; ROR aed Piast 
"she — hue tha teviooet a ‘oe Yiregerg 16 


; f ae ay hak RG 9 we 
ut bores ¢meo od darts ul Loerwos 20 meléwesnoo soddonh aii 





ads 9 one gamm Soles «0 aubiue’ vesused yxoviores old gatsuhogge 
bol th oon Jon saw caos ans va old ‘W agkIquedex Yo ytuys 03 —— 3 
eva fom D1 hun covtvoex sd oh aalémaltage a Yo guiitan eat te 


—J. — Zeige way 
— ov, stromiatowan wit of soekde baa xogqa of Ystaus ‘ 


yl ERE <3 Fikes 


fame sscotonts V⸗as td iis —— ee , _ +08 ano tae⸗ oad ah ¢hxom 
f * aged: : 


oF am 


many cays before the appointment was made she had notice of com- 
plainant's application for a receivers 

Another contention of counsel is that the allegntions of 
complainant's sworm bill, upon which the appointment of the receiver 
is Based, do not sufficiently show the necessity for such appoint- 
mente e are of the contrary opinion and do net think, in view of 
the allegetions of the bill and the provisions of the trust deed, 
that the court erred in making the appointment. (Haugen ve Carrs 
863 Ille ‘ppe S355 3403 Begley ve Lilinois Trust & Sevings Banks 
299 This 765 793 Bolton ve Starr, 223 Ille Appe 38, 43.) The bill, 
im acdition te alleging thet certain accrued taxes om the premises 
are unpaid, thet certain defaults heve occurred in the payment of 
matured bends and interest, and thet the lands and improvements are 
"seant and inouffieient security” fer the indebtedness due, further 
alleges that the umpaid incebtecdnese amounts to about £240,000, and 
thet “the feir and ressonable market value of the land and the 
improvements thereon is $222,000." 4nd in the order appointing the 
receiver the court found that gaid last mentioned sum “is insuffieient 
te discharge the obligations under the trust deed herein sought te 
be foreclosed.* 

The interlocutory order or deerce of December 30, 1952, 


appointing John Be Kanaley as receiver of the premises, is affirmed. 
APPIFEREDs 


Seanlan, P. Jeg and Sullivan, J+, coneure 





aor 


rae. 3p, oben, Ne * eT 9? 
| _  Maorboess «ta? telson iigga — 
* anobinge te ose tod a fomeuros te meliapenee weddom oy 


Wey 





sovtese ats Ye duemielogge sald foie sug efits tramee oy 


— oe es 


sdnieqqa Howe 182 Ytingovon ect wort. yidealeltivs soe ob adosad, 2 


39 waky ai sistas foe Gh hog mekaigo yxetsuoo gd¢ te ome OF  9taem 
eboeb deuté od? Yo anoisivgsg ods bus iLid adt te engitagetio ade 
Aaa oT anata) stusmtuhogys ↄa⸗ patter at. betes $4 @ ade sade 


AAS, 





eau Lf G08 
Aer J du 


“aval g ott me waxed bourses — alsdxoe saat antgette oF waters 
* ‘te dsservag oat at borurego etd etkueten hota data hae a he ms 
oe eénowsve ryt dua wba hops! tna oe — aim 4 : 









baa ‘40000888 swods oe atewona aroadeddonad — ‘say daa 


ee aa wie 





‘edd bun baat ed? %o suksy ꝛunn ——— ua — u * 


aut pal ateggs mebae old wl ee “.0009nmtng at O28 
ans isi Vio rt at” mime boned som teat dion tot, sews: true | ait “ows 
os detgno8 mtorr dowd faved wd xodea amok inptteo oa | syiatocth 








SORE eee odio ed | te es 10 ) sole erie, é 


sbomtt 2a a ‘geen taney asd te wrleet bad eofoaa bere 
oA 








Y ec te ee Dee 
4 ae ‘Be & rer aehtee alas * 


ong * 
—— oan eek 0 grata 


x rye ae 
oH 4 WRK eu Bee —— 


ks — 
r @ —— aay OD Tied wey on rt ae SS oe ee ee ae | * PL — 
4 We 
Hoke ra Stee, meee. Te pains gte Se 
ehabi « * 
rae see anne kag hes 
M2 OPH OvVase whiwatn se? teen 666 — ona deteke Be wae as — ——— 


* 


OF te 


SATs ait esd web i 


“1 
7 
ae 
id 

x icon a 

Ne 


mh 


36238 





EDVARD PURCELL, ) 
ippellant» 
APPEAL VROM MUNICIPAL 


COURT OF CHICAGO. 
* — 2 
2¢0 1.4.629 


Wie JUSTICE SULLIVAN DALIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 


Ve 
PATRICK Je KAZLSY, 
Appellee 


This was «a fourth claes contract action in the Municipal 
court. There wae o finding and judgment fer defendant in a trial 
before the court without a jury. Thies appeal followed. 

It appeare thot ‘ugust 20, 1950, plaimtiff and his wife, 
who resided in Ireland, executed = power of atterney which authorised 
éefendant to sell or rent and otherwise manage property owned by 
plaintify loented at 3916-8912 south Loomis street, Chicagoy that, 
comsencing September, 1950, defendant collected the rents from the 
premises, deposited all of the rent collections in the Depesitor's 
State Benk ef Chiesge in an account in his own name which wae 
devignated “special” upon advice of the officers of the bank, and 
in which was deposited only funds derived from this property, and 
that he made a1] disbursements necessary for repairs, maintenanee 
ané interest payments on thie property from this account, aa well 
as remittanees of the net balances from time to time to plaintiff 
im Irelands that he continued to administer plaintiff's property 
in thie manner until about Jomary 15, 1952, when the bepositer's 
State Bank in which this rent account was kept wan closed by the 
suditer of Public Accounts of the Stete of Illinois. tefendant 
admite there was a balanee of $583.33 im this account belonging to 








: ei tallegy, h ees oy 
TAGIOIWWM NOME LATTA E 


sODADERS GO TABOO 


vy a bitent 
F (ur 4S MOTTA 


 gitameo arr to uoꝛui ao aut cu —— — — 


Laqtotnal edd at mpigoe teortney eanks aiweet 2 sew ott 
ieivd «© ab imabusted to? srempbr) ben gnitatt 2 ecw wredt 4 
| bwwelie? Leegze wid? Pageants <b toe 
tie ent tus Vitentaty kel (Ok Faiden taly 
beatradtus feistw qerces ge Wee + tenons se a Seba 
ud heuwe ysreqose wgenie eadwtedie one thew wo Live Of sebibe 
gad? (onceid) gfoonte almond diose CLIBHLES Jw aedened vitsatabe 
| ed movt advo ode BosonLLev dmabasted sOSEL guedastgs® galosname 
sttedinggud a? af emottostien gave ads te Lae begtucqoh ganateong 
wae dolsin oman so clit nt favesos me mt Guopidd: tm dane epehe. 
ban died aut: te wived ite at te solwhe mepy *katoega®:tefemateod 
nome gyereqong allt @oxt devia chm yaw eynd aow sod mt 
———— 
Liew aa gémwooon ated wort yéroqesq elt? ap etmamgnq deoredat Sue 
VikIalas oF amks of omts mvt eooneied do ede to weonasahaoe we 
Yoxogenq wo! TUiiatasg redalaimte of bowmbineo wt Gods ghmekext mt 
a'utineged ats aodw gRECL .8L yawn @wodn Lhtms roanam odd mt 
edt uf bonaln any Sue enw drocon fun ad · Moldy ab sna opads 
dteabere text ratombi£t to stots wld to wtnwosds obLdet to. xodtbas 
Of antonaleg taucvon ality at — eet ; 














Ze 


plaintiff at the time the bank was closed and it wae for that 
amount that this suit was brought. 

The undisputed evidence shows that defendant made not 
more than four remittances from this rent account to plaintifY, 
who continued te reside in Ireland ¢uring all thie perier of 
over sixteen months (from September, 1950, to Jonumry, 1952), 
and it may be presumed that plaintiff sequieseed in the time, 
method and manner of the remittances as well as the collection, 
disbursement and accounting of the rents, as the evidence discloses 
no objection om his parte 

Although defendant had been given a power of attorney 
te sell as well as manage this property the evidenee discloses 
that the preperty was sold without hie ‘mowledge and without notice 
to him some time in December, 1931. There is some conflict aa to 
just when « demand was made on defendant by plaintiff fer the net 
belanee of the rent in his possessions 

The witness, Jom J. Kaveny, testified that following an 
incompleted telephone conversation with defendant January 14, 1932, 
he caused to be delivered te defendant the follewing letter of 
Jemuary 16, 19323 


“Dear Mrs Kecleyt : 

Enelesed please find letter which we received from 
Mr. Edward Pureell, dated becember 31, 1951, and addressed te 
yous notifying you thet he hes sold the property at 8910-12 
South Leomis Street, and that the new owner has appointed us 
as his agent and fer you to render an account of rents celiected 
for the months of Movember, December and January, together with 
a eheek to cover the balance. 

On Thursday, January 14th, the writer communicated with 
you telephone te notify you that he had received said letter 
from Mr. Purcell, alse a éeed from Mr. Purcell and his 
wife covering property at 8910-12 South Loomis Street, which 
deed has been recorded in the County Recorder's Office. The 
writer was very much surprised te learn that on the evening of 
Jenuary 14th you celled on the tenants and informed them that 
you were the agent ef the property and hed not been dimmiased. 
Ve also diseever that you collected the balence due on January 
from one of the tenants by the nome of Chirbanke 

We will expect, according to the terms of Mr. Purcell’s 
letter, thst you aceount for rents in question and deliver the 
leases coyering the above mentioned property within the next 
five days. if there are ony items you like to take up 


Ps = ss SS. ee See CSC ee 


ted a9) aow $2 bmw booeds aew Mmad od omk? on? do Thhietaly 
ethguotd anv Shue atid tats * 

ton hae tuotueted sade gwasts consbive bedugatbay eft 
sCiiéutalg o¢ taues0a duet alt? serv? aeepadiians «Hot —* oran 
te xeitog efdé zurt zuh Sanfoxl at vbteox of. semhiney aily 
e( S88 qgwmsl of gOh8L ,redmetged wort) —— mosdute ‘ve 
gout’ id ab Seonstwvon Tittnbel dada — of yan at das 
abetdootion vorie ae iiow on eooneddiaesr ext? ke “geerenan ‘tos besitom 
— soreblve ad? oa eadaot ott to peivaweosa baa Smemeatedath 
 sdung ald mm aolteoide om 
Yond he to toweg « movig ased bath ternbettte Mapa tn : 
) “ peaokonth aonsbive oa yeeegorg alte oneaau 20 iow 0 Siow o¢ 
eobsan deste tw ‘bne eqnadwont alsi daroetae dw nos Aled ‘witeqeng_ att tate 
et me tetfines ome at wxed®  <L80L etoaaa9ed mt sat? soe iit of 


ton was roꝛ aatai xd annbas da ne oat aan asad 9 ‘Beer fe J 


“suptngoso0y aid ai taor oft te eoante : 
me | gm waLto’ satis peti sued —— at raiot aes oad ty et — sa 
—J ett — snsbaor08 date mot tnexevnee paarige . 











© cimouk tevieo oe ow Mokite i 89ar Bede mete me 
Of becaexdhe dae «6CL oft —v eats aan 


2 £26 te Yoreget¢ ete 
ay botulegga wail ‘terme wort : dicot 
batootion “hy @iieson mm tedsex oF woy tot One gaega ald es 
gtiw raddagos eecanies ons —— at maa —T 
» one Lad aoodo ¥. 
sighw bedacimnuupo todttw ond eat Viowaal 9 Co soba 
— Stas bavieoss baud out acd 








ole 


with the writer before making out your statement, would be 

glad to go over the situation with yous 

will be B noe wom K pe agi sere bey 2m 4g a ree See 

per Je J+ Saveny.* 

He aleo testified that the messenger whe delivered this letter 
also celivered a letter or a copy of « letter signed vy plaintifr 
addressec to defendant and dated December Bly 1931. Thia letter 
was net offered in evideneo but 1¢ developed that it mad been 
written by the witness im Chicsge and forwarded to plaintify in 
Ireland to be signed by him and in turm mailed by plaintiff te 
éefend ant. 

The enly evidenee im the record aa to the receipt ef a 
letter by defendant cirect from plaintiff was the evidenee of 
éefenéant himself that “about January 17th or 18th" or “about the 
time the bank clesed" he received a letter from plaintiff advising 
him that he had sold the property and demanding payment ef the 
balance due him on the rent account fer November, December and 
January» YPilaintiff strenuously urges that the defendant at one 
point in his testimony admitted that he received thie letter from 
plaintiff abeut January 1, 1932. Defendant did so teatify but 
it wee plainly an inadvertence as defendant afterward corrected 
hie tevtimony to the effect that the letter from plaintif? was 
not received by him until about the middle of January, and in any 
event even on plaintiff's ow: theery of the case it veuld have 
been a physical impossibility 07 et to have received plaintiff's 
letter containing the demand of peyment from Ireland as early as 
January 1, 1932, if it had been mailed from Irelané on the date 
it bore, December Sl, 1931+ 

The plaintiff contends that where a collecting agent 
neglects to remit the proceeds of his collections during « pertod 


of several months and continues to withheld the money collected 


‘ 
2 fs " - 


e@ Aimew ,@memetete wey t96 paiwlaw oreted aediaw ed? Mite, 
* — — edt I⸗ oF ms 
tosses akald or baw 


9080 te ed —— ed tite 
ret 





‘phat WE lsat ay wes ahem 

getdek ald beteviles afr wogmonasa odd Jatt beltbdned sole eh 
Yiidhinle « besgie secdeL a le Wed & so Teseet w hoveviies eads 
segs gif? s4£0CK y SB tedusndt bedeh ban Sandee iso 02 donapmbhe 
‘weed bert 2 dose bogELoved 42 dad eunwatve ai bom Tho sem naw 
pe Vuretthatey og bomearco® hae Spobhtd mb amentie sdtogd nodtisy 
e? Yilinialiqg ~ wiien wud af bee mi qd benghe of oO? Spates 

Cewred ae By i WSR wowed jak Ae het pects ey edtia baste 

2 to tytoves 29 OF ox SxOoen wd? mb vomBbtD VaB MMT. fy 5p 

% eonshive odd sow Tikémialy moet — — 

-oGt dwetda” ro “OGL so APT ween ded” darts 
gatslyes Yilimialy aur? steel & sovioces: od. fhewatn Xnné nit ems 
edt Yeo treses¢ ar afew ot ot eae 
“980 34 Suabested one dtd —— —E — pic * 
————————— 
tud Lidest os bib smabwotel OGL of weeumal wedge thtentels 

bedoe cree btawisdte dnabasted ax coms srevbact ae. abate: war ah 

“aor Vikeniely mvt west wld tat torts odd of . ai 

wee dua erauut to eibatm edt — Vast —— 

) wena tihtew of enee ette Yo yoo ewe a" 22 ball, a: 
etvitemiasg bovsever ovat of AEG? witisivaouet & 
“we Vines es not wos sommes 29 tame os 


* gett ae — —* * = 


















4. 


after his principal has enused a forme]. demndé te be mode upon 
him, and thet while he se withhel¢ the funds the bank in which 
the agent had deposited the money had been elesed by the state 
auditor, the question of the agert's negligenet ie a material 
consideration in determining the question az te the agent's liability 
for the loss of the fundse This is a correct stotement of the law 
ig the promises are correct. Mowever, im the inutant ease there is 
no Basie for aseuming thet defendimt was negligent im foiling te 
remit fox three months when it is a fair inference from the evidense 
taat the remitiances were to be made only every itnree or four months, 
ae the plaintiff had apparently aequiesesc im the conduct of defend- 
ant in forverding bui four remitsances in slateen months. There is 
moO evidence in thie secerd of a positives, definite demend on dcfend- 
ant fer the payment of this vent balange cxcept the evidence of 
defendant himne’f that be received plaintiff's letter containing the 
demand “around the 17th or 15th of Jawusry" or “about the time the 
bank closed", and that he was mot sure whether it was before or 
after the bank cloceds 

Plsintifi'ts witness John J. Keveny's telephene cali of 
January 14, and hie letter of January 16, might have qufficed te 
advise defendant that the property hed bacn sold, but they could 
hardly be construed as legal demands on the port of plaintiff fer 
the payment of this moneys ‘The relation of plaintiff and defendant 
was thet of principal and agent anc the sole question presented by 
this recerd is whether, in carins for the property ef plaintiff 
or in accounting fer the collection ef rents by defendant, the 
agent exercised that degree of care anc caution for ite safety 
that an ordinarily prudemt person would have exercised under like 
end similar circumstences. There is mething in this record that 
ghoxs thet defendant wes remiss in any of his duties to hia ebsent 
principal. On the contrary the evidence shows that he was faithful 


nous when, 24 98 Mesh nemo bonne salt Lachottag ahi wn 
Koide at Anac ace aboot auly diedsidtw ox edndiw tut? bme yatt 
ninge ost)  beweEo moed fuk Yona edd Dabtaogsh ed apa edt 
Lalvedan a al ox nogt Byon etiuega aft ko —X estt 4 tod hiate 
“ilkidall gt inegs of? of an mahteosp odd quidhawdes al mebiaebleass 
wat ef? wy deommécde dvovses » at ate  sabairh ede te weal “ate at 
ab erst Ûů——— WAP TE 
od pattie? af dasgligon wav daobawto Satt yckuees | 
seuikin ashhinh winkuniaahenie yaaa 
sedis swt xo somid pteve “ine obat vd ef sual! woonas rise od Sat 
ebasteh te gowbnes ed? ul Sevsviagos Yldasteegqs heal sek ooh ald | sa 
et excl  sasdene tootete st weeds dlailx Week Woe gllbdees | 
buted ne bunaed esiulYow sevetiveg sty pubes wldy iat seeubive 
% goasbive ot sqvexe vonolied taox ald wo Sms ea wad “aa ohn ts a 
eid yatntatios wl20f ett itdatalg bevieuii nd ‘tadd Yieadid dmodnot 
cas tt st i i a 
te oreted aay of vata — om tee? hue 4 *hewets iar 
eaten in gnt en avatar 
— 
of Sowhtiwe svat men * — — aia * 
































tnabavtes bes 22htatate — —* — al 


it 4s ae sow 
| wildy Pee beo'te yt alder — ‘WHY wot — — —»—»—— 
Ysetan abl cor mosses one wow te beegeb Hale Bea: 
Sati beooer alse md eeidisom ek seen ” yer — ath 
voran van of Wok tub abd 90 ein’ mt SubstOt dad" sinha 
Lstdtiat sow od tan? wwode sonebivs ate gH > 





Se 


to the trust repesed im himy that during the sixteen months he 
wae in charge of this property he was diligent in administering 
it anc that no legal demand woo made on him by plaintiff for the 
payment of thie balance until the dey or the day befere the bank 
closed, and that by reasen of the closing of the bank January 
18, 1932, he was not afforded «a reasonable opportunity in the 
exeraise of ordinary care and caution, after demand was made, to 
make the necessary cecoeunting and payment to the plaintirf of the 
net balance om deposit in the bank. 

In the case of American Uxpregs Cos ve Stuarts, 134 Ille 
Appe 390, 393, where a druggist hod been acting ae agent for the 
express company in the wale of express money orders end the pre- 
eeede of such sales had disappeared from the safe of the agents, we 
believe the court laid down the corvect rule when 1% said: 

sh et setnadent wad and tn. orien tae ———— 

the appellant, his prinvipal, appellee was only souml to exercise 
Sa sa ctitesfir savored eal rede pers aid hove convent 
under like er similar cireunustaneces." 

The question of ¢ue gare on the part of the defendant was 
one of fact for the determination of the trial court and it ie well 
settled that courts of review are not at Lliverty te dicturd the finde 
ing of the trial court umlece the some is manifestly contrary te 
end umerranted by the evidenge. 

Yer the reasons ctated we are of the opinion that the 
Munieipel court wes Juctified im ite finding and ite judgment is 
affirmeds 

APPINEED 


. Stamlane F. Jen ard Gridley, Fay CONCUMs 





 ghEh bbs 


“fw qduage iid 20 oe esti mort botmsgqund® bad vedas oun 20 


and 4 —— ie = — 
——— — 


vst ealdmect estate, co gadis cial pad 4 — asd oat aid 
miivodaiatabe wh daogltts aa oat Yrrogotg ghdt te sazade at aoe 
ott wet Whkiahad ud mid oo 9 bam sow damm h Leyes, on taut — dt 
fend ot oxoteg wed cold 19 yod od? Attaw vomued ald? 30 9 14 
__Resma® Sed sal 20 witsoke odd Ye meaner WW dads be, * 











at 0a neve baa zotte eset duno, * 5 9100 ea one * * 





| ait te | be Soka ot of snow Dane pattaueooe wer· vo a me 


— act m2 tango me semnind tom 
ald <a s smn 400K QOtE soe 


Oy ode ote Skehtd YwRoa soon he eLen sed ‘a yumm neem 











rc ae } x — 


— 
—— 


‘ghtse wale ore * wah trod blak suse oid oy : 
formas mare — ——— bed * eae ext” 





wed sgh: 







as i chtesbinen a ‘OR atte Baht FUNOD LESS 
» ead dest ha ait, 2 9x0 gy batty — we eT, me ae 
ak freon adi bes wuhood? aff gt bertdnwh eew tao. és 


‘oa. ee —— 
i” # Bo RS FRSC RAF * 











Cams, 





oS Ean Seep es Ok cd hak s SE 
Net saw Mikey see fold eae 
Rey 
mat 





36273 
GUSTAF ALEXANDER, doing business | 
ALEXARDER PAP FRAME COe,g } : 
Unincorporated ), 
Appellees, 
APPEAL FROM MUMHICL PAL 
Ve 
COURT OF CHICAGO, 
gene ts we FURNITURE COeg Ince, 4, 
& corpors é i ee eae he ; 
, Appellant. 2 7 0 I eine 0 2 9 


MR» TULTICS SULLIVAN BELIVIRED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


April 79 1932, this action wae brought in the Municipal 
court by Guetaf Alexander, doing business as Alexander Parlor Freme 
Coes against the International Furniture Cos, Ince, & corporation, 
te recover $1616.19 for goodu, wares ax merchandise furnished, 
solid and delivered te defendant by plaintiff. 

Pacts eufficient te prove plaintiff's case were either 
presented in evidence or admitted and defendant offered ne evidence 
disputing or denying plaintiff's claim. The court directed a 
verdict in favor of plaintiff for 91616619 and entered Judgment 
on the verdict for thet amounte Thies appeal followed. 

It appears that December 15, 1929, an identiesi suit 
was etarted in the Bunicipal court, except thet it eas brought 
in the name of Alexander Parlor Frome Coe, Inces m corporation, 
umier a misapprehension that the business of plaintiff had been 
incorporated and wasn being conducted ae a corporations that this 
original case was pending im the Municipal court until April 5, 
1932, when it was renched for trial, at which time plaintiff's 
attorney discovered that plaintiff had net been incerperated and 
Was not conducting ite business ac a corporstiong and that by 
reseon of this discovery plaintiff teok a nonsuit, 

Subsequent to the commencement of the instant suit. 





— — 
— 
a ae 
: ‘ 
* —A 


——— — ———— 
aioe age ramet 


“esa ner — 











a 
| 
| 
q 


= bested sudbaadtoren | tea — — * Che anne 
Pointe YE smeher teh 08 fener | 

ween otew aie ett1ivatnte every of tennehtiad aden) cc 

— oa buistte #ustmRsd dee tedtianhe v9 sedbees at betmnaone 
s todoothh deuws ott «oaths a? te bentady — F weet reid 

* deat noises ua @LoL0L0 s0¥ Fitoabate Ye sera mt un 

Wouat tor Lahan wast divas bat * * wy “oe 

oe wensed oF 

tguotd’ daw #2 todd tqeead gruves Lagie * } it bettas 
etolianagean a —WR —8R saat 2% wolues ee — V ae 

aved bad Vktalalg Yo anontowd ea? dads mokanedomys * 

aids dase — na bedowhmon vated ta be f 














' ‘QS fost baw qaoddetegres & ao savukaud aah —7 
ativason « det Videmtalg Yrevovath | X ‘mon 
“thes vaca ote te snsmondsiao9 ie 06 caniipuatal 





ove 


April V9 1932, defendant filed ite affidavit of merits day 20, 1952, 
ané the case Was at igeuee May 265 193%, plaintiff served notice 
on defendant that he would appear May 27, 1952, before the Chief 
Justice of the Municipal court and move that the case be advaneed for 
trial or vet for immediate heering. June 9» 1932, plaintiff was 
given leave te file hie notice inatanter and an affidavit in support 
of hie metion te advance the ense and defendant waa permitted te file 
imetanter eritten objections to the motion and affidavit ef plaintiff. 
Thereupon the Chief Justice of the Municipal court sustained the motion 
of plaintiff and act the eave for trial Jume 20, 1932. Defendant 
ecacepted to the ruling of the court on plaintiff's motion ani leave 
was granted to defendant to file ite interlocutery bill of exeeptions, 
which it did, and the seme was approved July 7, 10932. Jume 20, 1952, 
when the case wee reachee and called fer trial, the attorneys for 
defendant refused to participate in the trial, offered no teat imony 
in defense of the claim and objected to the jurisdiction of the court 
on the grows that the exce had been advameed and was being tried 
contrary to the rules of the Municipal court of Ghiceago.e It is urged 
that the failure of the trial court te conform te a certain rwhe of 
the court deprived it of jurisdiction to try the ense on its merits, 
Goumael Goes not contend, however, that the “umicipad 
eourt Incked jurisciction ef the persons ami the subject matter of 
thie proceeding, ond if the court did err im ite ruling on the 
motion te a¢vanee the conse it was a mere errer of discretion and 
eould mot possibly affect ite jurisdiction te try the case. In 
Carroll, Schenderf & Boenickes, Ince v» Hastingse 259 Til» Apps B64, 
572, thie court seid: 


"Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the matter 
in controversy between parties, and if the lew gives the court power 
te render a j or decree the court has isdietion, and an 
erroneous decis eoannet deprive it of that jurisdiction." 


The affidavit ef plaintiff filed in support of his motion 


es : — 


aREOL 400 Wall edixam ‘Lo PvehAtte oFt SuLEY smobawted arek o¥ Lap 
wet ien heywnos eens. gStOL obR YR soateagk #a an os av — * ae 










—«eRikdabady 26 Sivebi te dus soliton add OF RaOhiSeldo aosdhen 3 tastes 
| abso eld ombetamy srv00 Lagkotens ade To satan Reds? ool? moquotedt 
fundooted 860L OS cmt Latxd wet ones adv don bme Tide Lake 
| ‘proses | tne nol dom a ebtdnialg mo Suee * oe 29q90 
sumattqeexe Re Lite ‘Wroswookedet eal eLty od dwebaeeed 02 sebnweg’e: 
es 208 omni’ x60 at vault sevens tot se ott «BD 08 a 
$7 —2 ote shakes 0% boilee one bednavt ean oti 
enol ood om bots tte hates iit ab 83 at ’ 
#imoe at Xo aol dot iat aut sl 03 hodestde tne minke ia’ te cometon at 
bokae ented cow Sra bonniry ba most fut case ad Gadd nomwotg: {2 a0 
beam of 4 sogentan ad teqtoteut © * * elie * a cari 

















Ye wottan Sortdon at aaa dab a aa be | 
: wate me paitve afl ai wr Sus Hsiseo ld YE as — 

—R % sort ‘ores 6 nae ae poet ads oon 
om ssonp ould exe of uutsotindart aif soothe \ * 
wPOE ogGh afk Ca race 





softam ed smtaseso> 9), ta sand of sora 
ane — oat 


a⸗ —————— iti st fae — 


E okt to freggea: 2c* 


o3e 


for the atvanecement of the case for trial was as follows: 


"Gustaf Alexander, doing bueinesa ac Alexander Yarlor 
Prame Coe» plaintiff in the above entitled cause, be firet dwly 
evern, on oath deposes and a that the indebtedness the above 
ease has been due and owing Plaintiff since 1929, and that 
suit was brought upon the seme more than a year ago, and that said 
defenient hae been se evasive, crafty and deceptive in said matter 
that it esesped making «11 payments and out of court, and that 
owing to enic delay, the plaintiff in said matter will be unable 
te secure his witnesces; thet one of his witnesses is now ero 
the city to return to his people and seek employment anc a livel 
@lsewhere than in the City ef Chiesge and ‘ounty of Cookg that by 
said witness he expeets te prove thet waid material wac sold and 
delivered and sent out in the amount stated in the bill of par= 
ticularss, etes, and that the material was in first clase condition, 
was number one lumber, and thet «11 of seid goods, wares and mere 
chandise were made amd monufactured im a hich claec werkuarlike 
manner, were perfect in all reapecta when made, when cold, and when 
delivered, that the defendant at no time made any payment on the 
same oF complained, but used and utiliced «11 of said gooduy wares 
and merchandise in ite businescg and without eaid witness this 
plaintiff will be unable to prove his case.” 


Defendant contends that the affidewit of plaintiff was 
insufficient ond affomded the court no legal grounds for advancing 
the esuse for trial end that the order of the court setting it fer 
trial June 20, 1932, and removing it from its reguler place on the 
calendar wae contrary te the rules of the Municipal courte In 
support ef this contention defendant calls our ctiention to the 
rule embodied in general order of the Mumicipal court of chicage 
Boe S14, which is as follows? 


*(A) There is hereby established an ‘imergency Calendars* 

aoe ee pee NS Se or atterney, im sny auit upen « note er 
instrument in writing fer the payment of money only, or 
—* 34* the elas on judge igned on hear euch ——— — 
sen er Eee 255 é cof 

an affidavit that he verily believes the tr of said euit 
will not occupy more than one and one-half hours’ * exelud ing 
the time to b¢ consumed in the selection of « jury) and steting the 
grounds for euch belief, and it being made te appear tht there is 
@ reasonable probability that such suit can be tried in the aforessi’éd 
time, such suit shall be placed on enid ‘Smergeney Calendar’ and shell 
lese ite place on the regular tzlendare Notice ef such motion 
shall be gi eppesing eoun 

*(B) A suit upon said ‘Smergency Calendar’ shall only be 
passed or continued fer good eause shown but by agreement may be 
stricken therefrom and resume its regular place on the jury calendar. 

“(¢@) if che trial of any suit which ia upon the enid 
"Smergency Calendar' shall oecupy mere than one and one-half hours’ 
time, thes the court shall step the trial, take the ease from the 
jury «nd continue it, and the suit shall, wiles: otherwise ordered 
by the court, co te the foot of the pending jury calendar without 


— 


savellick wm caw inbza tek cong ong Be. 


salsa Winwaeks sa seamed qed on — Satay ih aoe 
“hrs toeht auked gender boli ete Seeds “est? amb ——5338 ! 
sveds afd as vowsbeddebet ode axi⸗ oy epee *2* Sine ae — 
‘eld em geRat douks Tis imiaig. & sond 
Show Ga8d bne gene tort & mod stem gotne — — po Fool ‘Shem 
wtvan Bhae wt evidgeoss bas Ulex yeviaave te aod eau daha ho) 
gost bes gfoeee Yo foe bee af admoaeq ike seidem bogeene $2 sass 
wideau of Litw redtdw Sine at Yitiatalg of? gyskeh bien of gabwo 
purvesk wom at exeoeetiv att to one dattd i's oanenéle ets eaupts of 
Sagiilewik a ints — doon tea wkqesg @ po? ee oe A mid 
eH tede gilew® to Gino at mais simieweto 
ban Sfqu aaw taivsdem Bhew fads oven * ** ed waeashe & 
— * to Ifid ald ab beads iepema oto a go dope 
gttel $2anes waeke tacit af saw Seisetam at? Cade bee 40080 — il 
tom bee cotew guooum bios t¢ Ike dud? bom g todos com. — 
 irestuer seats dald o af Sexivece tema bee shar wnow & ry" 
wade bes g bloc audiw gehen mole etoognet Lis ad lg debe § — 
ag? oG deveryeg ‘yam she eats on e en 
eetew geboen Shao to Lfe sewtiten bee bean ion — que Ge 
etdé ecomtiw blew — in ganenkaed aft mi oolthmatorem & 
"sane ahd every oF oe tdaras * —* rib det ad 


aa Tiddatale Ww divenkvie ed toed ebamdeee auehaon vg oS 
wat orev 10% newer ioget om rweo ved Bobsorte hats dnok od 32a 
























rr 


wot t 68 palsone | — * te seine * fonts oe fabs wh waar > a 










mt 4ocmee Lou totut eds te vedi out ¢ a —““ ow ca ee | 
ait? ot noksuetis wwe affine enn ages ashoun auen wate ® * SL 
Gyeoks Yo daues Lag bo tnasii ade * bas iononap ni bos ttt 




















38 —E—— — — pea By 
agen « wage 2hua cue al «yervttea so fees 8 a 
0 van Younes to sneargeg edt eek yabshuw wt 2 ; 
— —— x O82? sy boonlg weed wos sodde — ‘S| 
oo teed of bematons epghah me om 
tims een te 4 fis eat woveited qiivey od. sen Chee éivakitte ae Sembads 
pith butoxe —— ‘amas tindene Spe eam male —— on 





7 Pre in (yuh « te oultonton guid. * ouuae no Bua 
al wiane Soxtd — a? whem pofod ¢1 bus —— 
Skevoxeia of? ah bebté 46 nao Penge SbF Sidodong « 
ifede bea ‘yabrehod yoregrendi’ bien me Soe. 
sol fom Haun Yo opisor _ofahwe tae ba: 


od wus — 
vindwoday ode me ie sndirge ¥ a ‘cha ye 


Skua ot Ghat 
*axwert r 
— ay ee tage tree te eae 
pH. oul wade Paved pilosa gkun odd bam gAt 


poet, then ian yet, oman ont te eh 


ode 


a hy po — 
‘imergency Calendar’. 

Defendant insists that thie rule is the only rule of 
the Municipal court bearing upon the advancement of cases end 
cites many decisions of the Lilinois Supreme and Appellate courts 
to the effect that rules ef court are obligatory on the court 
iteelf, ase well as upon the parties, and mist be administered 
according te their terms while they remain in force, and that 
rules of court when entered of recerd become the law of procedure 
in matters to which they relate when not inconsistent with the 
statute, and are binding on the court.  Thix ia the recognised 
law, But neither the law mor the rule relied upon by the é«fendent 
is applicable to the iscue presented in this cases 

The rule quoted simply provides a method for placing 
Gases om the short enuse calendar of the Municipal court and as 
far as we are able to diseever was not even contemplated by 
plaintiff os affording a legel becis fer hie motion, and the 
affidavit in suppert thereef, for the adyaneement of the casts 
Neither his motion mor hie affidavit made any referenee te the 
 ““Bmergency Calender” ae provided for in this rule nor te the time 
it would take to try the case. Sy Rie motion he sought the 
advancement of the case on the reguler celendar fer the r eseons 
set forth in the affidavit. The above rule of the Municipal 
court relied on by defendant and severnl sections of the Municipal 
Court Agt, che 37, Cahill’s This Revs t+, refervec to in 
plaintiff's brief have no relevancy to the question presented 
for decision by this appeal. 

Courts have inherent power to advanee cases for trial 
fer good esuse shown and in this state the power and authority 
to advanee cases is specifienlly gremted under sees 21, Ghe 1199 


Cahill's Ills Reve ot», which providest 


ET a a a ee ee ee ee eee ee 


Se. — 


to en a Se ge ee ee pe 














Li site oo wane ghee ge oa —— * in * 5 —— 
tin ORAS 


— AES 


— aaitoges has emrmr otont itt - w — * — 
a ate. asta — caps vue tape 6 ali Be —R 


———— beta 


Wf botalgus tees gaye tom gam * * site oe beds 


thd fin yaphiom nist ret atnod Lewes ea 
stone off 39 @uomeaceron aed — at. 





eat of egrexetor Yow Shaw — —— 


SATS 


ttt toe tr 


_ “All causes shall be tried, or otherwise disponad of, 
im the order they are placed on the docket, unless the court, 
for good and sufficient cause, otherwiew directs * * *,* 


Under this statute it is the exttled law of this state 
thet a cave moy be odvanoed for trial for ouffieient enuse in the 
sound discretion of the trial courte The opinion of our Suprese 
Court in the case of Spitzer vs Sehlabte 249 Idle 416, (19-20, is 
particularly applicable to the cane at bar because of the 
similarity of the facts. Im that ease the court held: 


“Appellants' contention is, that after the new trial 

wider the statute wae granted, the case stood as though it was 
& Hew Gane commenced on that day, amd was mot, therefore, sib- 
Sot Te Sank WARES O22 GF the eases then pending had been called 

e trials Appellants’ attorney filed an affidavit in suppert 
Ray 34 velah in enpediod in the bill of 

2 ef exceptions taken « 

thet time. The rules of court are also in the bill of excepe 
tions regulating the order in which enses ave to be docketed and 
tried in the cireult court of Cook county» The affidavit filed 
im suppert of appellants' objection shows the mumber of cases 
that wexve then pending for trial on Judge Jeanlan's calender 
which were subject to eall in reguler order before the ease at 
bar would be reached. From the sffidavit/ippears that there were 
about seven hundred ami fifty oases thet pending fer hear on 
Judge Seamlan's calendar. There ig nothing im the affidavit 
shoving that appellants were mot ag well prepared te try the case 
at the time it was set down for hearing as they would have been 
at amy later date, and the only reason ascigned in appellants’ 
brief for delaying the trial of the ease is, that they might 
have obtained a compromise if the ease had been placed at the 
foot of the calender and mot tried until ii wesc reached in 
x eoxders The statute prevides that ‘all causes shall be 
tried, or otherwise disposed of, in the order they are placed on 
the docket, unless be i court, for gees and sufficient cause, shall 
otherwise direct.* (Murd's State 1909, chaps 110, veces 21+) 
What is ‘oe and sufficient cause! is mot defined by the statute 
and must refore be determined by the trial court, in the first 





« bank, 


iastance, in the exercise of a sound legal diserction. 
berg, 138 22g Staunten Coal lanik, 1 









UCL Os © i 235 id . . 2 MAME Ol Ved 
De Ve Monks, BUpTa, of S759 it was said: "The 2 @ does not 
setermine wh: mall constitute eufficient cause fer trying a case 
out of its order on the decket, but that is a matter to be ceter- 
mined by the court in the exercise cf « sound legal diseretion. 

Shen the ceurt so exercises ite diseretion in the matter, its section 
wili not be interfered with by a reviewing court wiless there has 


ites dicveretion,’ cit * * © Appellants 
oe SO eg ht ack tat sae torious defense 


hed. * * * The tr court had the power, under the stotute, 
te try the case out of its oy erder fer good and sufficient 
@nuse, The record does not eifieally what the court ree 
Gardes ac sufficient ecuse fer & the ease out ef ita regular 
Order, But the bill of exeeptions contains a statement by the court 
in reference to the length of time that the ease had been pending, 
and the court was probably influenced by that fact in setting the 
@ase down for a opecedy trial. But it is not necesaory that the 












ato Sevegads @abvtedte wW adeiod of hes seams. — 
Pits BS ah? kus ytotons att yet? Tente oao we 
Mot 8% goons s taderlee «hate, sented SNe * * * A 


 gheds elle to wok bukddoe auld ab 0b studeds ath? all , 
| ast d mh gasuo tuetol J tor fais? tok haoaarbs ad oat Sead a —E ‘ 
raga sue le nokaiae eit owes fais ante te wok somal Seu oa 
at seed) att oft @bh gadgkdod ov song’ Ye sono add mh Saved 
edd Yo onbeood tad to onwe ostt ‘8 sidastiqnn visas beg 

thie geues add wnwe dodd ah sedeat ake te yotunth 


haixé wom nal’ — dans gad wel Paodeoe © as 
eur 2) Kouedié ao doade saan Offs geting sow & a a 
wdisn ,xuehoweds eter vav bits 9 yeh Sate me Tiikeaies wade 
beiise need haat ‘pal Leva wad? genes od * kia dian . 
stages at eesti tee f as Bodh? YuMtieds “adead foggy 
.. Be sated wet source ef pabites wbhre ens OF — 
ts detied aneliquexe to Zaid of9 mt bribed «4 | 
. egeges to Shte ofd mh onde ote Outen to aedos olf ent? ‘ie 
bea bedeteot a0 o¢ ors eeusw doldw wt c5obem 66s guldaduyex 
eefit thesbhtie of? «yduaee Mood Te fxuee eheoria Be we bode 
— ie voce of swede MOltvs$de tadnetiogge te Saagque Rt 
‘gsbaet oo @' gadaao’ * ay soaks ssow dust 
‘tu saae ould —— goa at Saw eo” ge —V — 
axew @uegs gadd etaongs Rivas el? ape ——— af akwew tad Mi 
oo yotuest set get heey reals aoa gerit feacor a ehaahnat even abet 




















Sienbditts eft mt getdian of —  «tatewhes a! del 2 BeBe 
evan ad Yad ef hevegeng Liew ae 36m aver —— ded? guiwedtn 
need ever Slwow yadt se goktasd cet med goa yen : ant wat * 

*gtunifegqe Wi howgtoea meanet Yheo was bom aoda *2 

— gnt sane add Yo Labae oc? —3* ret tela 
ets 4a Semedg aeod bal aaeo ed). th wedeosgepe « bocdkeddo) 
wi bedosex naw @f Shinw beled Jom hee —— ees to gous 
og ifetin weeses ikea’ desis sebivorg e6e0esa wit «tehtO. 
ge bepnia wen yor? webte offs we Bog boswgaed salwindée — gboind 
kiade goumeo deoletiias ome heag 29 Shkaindal ed speiae ete 
o£8 atom eg GEL egule ,fOeL we & frnallt } ‘, +doond iz me 
oiugass of? yt buntte > tem af ‘eavan dmotod ting bea seen" ie oat . 
res sais at gituev Late? olf yt deniveredad ad erste 
gander) — Lano bumee » Me ——5 al oot 
Bs Vet ey 2 gas tes iP aah — 
oe — ESS GS oe 5, 2 — as og. Sass roa * 


* im 9. 
fon 2065 oduende out! shina any dfs oe MO 9 
Qaon « pebesd “6% sevne Ieelpi tiwe —— So lmereses 
stupa og ag yh —3 very, — — —— 
soiterees’ Lage oh a Qeoe is a bomb 
motive eth gxoddum att mi gel soume. ay adk vealoroxs oo Bet hae ti 
gat otede eatdaw phig on Avetys a “d adhe bows bueded 
esantions: — * seauop guid le — ag | gourds 
ane teb peidtied tom ‘Une siae ny Ay oat a 
gr td bingy | a towog » Pond bat eye * “eo i & OR 5 Bae 
7 ok Vinee ® ve hae ‘t & NG 9280 | 
bs ouren watt ¢ ais” Blnethacs ‘seu — 25 
— eat %o —* gas ing frou te —— 
D————— hod —J——— a ‘shtnalees — 




























— pikddoe mk tock sould oe w tumoo ont & 
wad told Yxoanseon fon wk i “a. of weds poses ge 98 


*62 


records should show the reasons upon which the Rg ee judge exercised 


—* gisorction. — the absence of « showing to the contrary, the 
tion a Ae thet the court properly exereised 1% 
icone fon. re ee 70 Idle 1166 
po hd wae no error Caaith ye ted try ® Gauge out of its regular 
order." 


There was mot even a suggestion of a defense against this 
Claim on the trial, and inasmuch os the matters set lerth in the 
affidavit fer the advancement of the case were not controverted, 
aud inamsuch as the original ence involving the same subject mtter 
and the same parties was ponding in the Municipal court since 
Becember 13,5 1929, it is cur opimiom thot there was no abuse of 
@iseretion by the Chief Justice of the Municipal court when the 
motion te advance the case for trial wes sustained 

Yor the reasons stated herein the judgment of the Mumictpal 


court ie effirmeds 
APPTAME De 


Senmlan, Pe Je, and Gridley, J+, conmeure 























oe * —— 


— mie Lesh tet ode cy ola 8 1s _ as — ; 


TES oy Sacre 


* 
Hiya aa —* 


—* ee a) Hy 







Be NP * 





* Lakes ee. a? ae 
Y BRO. TBR eee ager 


' wh ae 
mice es Dae WR Bae 





sds) gl 
* 
36282 | 
ORVILLE Ce HATCH, Jre,y } 
Appellee, } 
APPFRAL VAG CIRCUIT 
Ve 
COURT, COGK COUNTY. 
RB. and Ae ? Ineo» | 
m Corporation, 


MR. JUSTICN SULLIVAN DOLIVGAS THE OF DILGER OF THE COURT, 


This appeal involves a eult brought im the Cireuit 
court of Cook county om a fercign judgment. The original 
procecdings were instituted in the Superier court of the 
county of King, in the stete of Yashington, a court of general 
jurisdiction. Judgment wae entered im that court against the 
Gefendant, Bs. and Ae Opler, Ince, am Illinois corporation, for 
$913.64, together with interest thereon at the rate of six per 
cent per annum from VPebruary 9, 1928, and plaintiff's costs 
ageregating §23.70. The plainticf in that proceeding filed 
a auit based on that judgment in the Cireuit court of Cook 
county and in connection therewith filed a copy of the jucgment 
sued upon. The court after trial without a jury entered a 
finding and judgment against the defendont for 91103045. 

The ¢efendant contends that the trial court erred in 
permitting the intreduction im evidence by the plaintiff of 
an exemplified copy of the judgment order of the “ashingten 
court, on the ground thet it foiled to include on ita face facts 
whowing that the foreign court had jurisdiction of the person 
of the Yilinois corporation, defendant; and in refusing to permit 
the defendant to introduce evidence which it claimed would show 
that the foreign court was not autherized by law to exercise — 


TRUDE wo CARS EA 


ot PHROS “ROUD "CABO 
"eSd..A.T ONS. ie — — * 


Au Se LO MONS GNP Gamavned —EE——— me 


hy ay salits 
“Htuettd ods a idguerd étea @ uovkovat Langgs ald? 


— wit. duaeyiut, eptexe 2 m0 yinuos ‘too to — 

ed? to twee ⏑ ni bodutisunt oxow egtibaoven ~~ 

Leroaey Yo eos & ynoinuisian’ Ye otade etd ab ygatX Yo yemweD 

at? famkege dxweo fadé mt bewedms caw dememmaut Hoi 201 bes wh 
‘tot qtokiamoques elentlit we yeont «relg? 4A * * stasbaotes — 
«eq xte lo atax od fs mooxeds dievednl diiw ‘vssseuot aioe 7 ee " 
eteoe a'tisiniakg Soe ,8ROL gf yxessdat Pee sets neq — 
hoktt gutbosvoxg date at —W ott OPES ent donor 
devo to duwoo timoutd ott aa — tuft ao beved éhue o 
tose, wid Ro yqoe # deft? Astwoxnds Rodtvennes at Nea yeameo 
& heredae yaul o juodéiw saltd veda deuoe edt meg box ’ 
LEde28LE9 102 sttalinedwd oils domboge Hrempbut dna ant enh 
Bk bere suu0s katué oa tadd ebmedaoe snadastod ont ux ; 
‘we Vitemdosg add YS vomonive mt uotsoudorint ee gatsetareg 
nosgetdinad ss Xe webrto deomghut, etd ke woe eae | : 

atest sect at ao obwdont of Bellet ¢2 Seid dauery ons oo ef as 
Soareg ot to molsotheiaw, sad dunes maletod. all outs im teed 
ttuxeq 0: gittentor ak bus gaciaber tod enol voxoqnes Aonattr ou eo 
wesls ALwsow bomtnfo 34 dolste voavbive opubordsk ot tasbao 26d ode 
oetotexd of wa yo destrosteun ton caw suave matere? ode baa a 



























20 


juriadietion over the defendant. 

The judgment order of the Yashington court conte ined 
the following reeitals: 

"Be it Remembered that thie cause came om duly snd 
regularly for trial in open court on the 15th doy of Jume, 130, 
pin the undersigned Judge of the above entitled court, upon 

the complaint of the plaintiff, the anawer of the defendant and 
the reply of the plaintirt thereto; plaintiff appearing by his 
attorneys Wurphy & Luma, the defendant ‘Beitenc, by its —— 
pepe conn & mane and ‘eldon * ttena, and th 


nt of 4 hat & * — j — 
exver with summons he — sae 


re -8 Os et anc t BRS a * 2 
mast af _juxaéigtion hay ag been previous); 
aad io_th Hiton ef salt def catant amd ti 
ehelienge —— Tetion of “the couch Overrubeds evidence was 
them taken and the eause submitted to the court for its consid- 
eration and determination, anu? the court having fuliy eoupidered 
the proofs offered and becoming fully advised in the premines and 
hevying wade ite findings ef fxet and conclusions ef law, reduced 
the game to writing omd caused them to be signed and filed harein.*® 
it appeared that summons was persotially served on Sdmund 
Opler, as president of the defendant corporation, im King county, 
¥ashingten, 26 well as upom the A+ Ue Pinkham & Company, which 
company it was alieged was an ageut of the defendant; that attorneys 
were outherized te appear apecinliy fer the defendent and shellenge 
the jurie¢iction of the courtg that a hearing was had as te the 
juristiction of the court over the person of the defendant; that 
the question of jurisdiction was decided adversely to the defendant; 
that thereafter the defendant file¢ am answer and the cause proceeded 
te a hearing on the merits in which the defendant through its 
attorneys participated. If the general appearance of she defendant 
wae filed in the Yashingten court by ite attorneys there, vrithout 


authority te de se, the defendant may hold them responeible in the 










proper notions 
An examination of the bill of exeeptions here discloses 


thet practically the entire proeeedings before the trial court 
. consisted of collequy between counsel and argument te the court 





* 


—E— eas sore sol sedi tm 


— E two. —— 4 te sobre Smomginet, ett neha 
—5 nivot lei * 


edd ‘te & yewena —* —* 
et, ia —— eh ,,———— 
— Saey 
—— Sy oe 






P * Pe vest ty — : » aor oa rs. | 

*smbored bos! bee bomie od of morta —— te sale ine * — 
ea? is —8 At⸗nor ivg —V——— 

Vaur waa a⸗ —B — —— snadavten oats * fusion 


iis Se bly . ons hes ksh 


foisn «Wome? & patel 6U +A eed og 0a Lon an ¢ 
—F 2 ee ee Cae ae eo 
wyomxedsn Satis SAnabmertod att Ye faves ue enw bogett 


ogioitacia kun dusiaotod edt 20% xAistoogs esaga 9 boabuediun oxve 
ed ot ae batt gow pathaned K toa peewee * * ———— 

todd qonnimvten etd te ocala esi aeve xo ——— —**— a 

pmo basta ong oa ilonsovse denkeos saw matvot beta, 22 iB Be 
bo beane am — ate ons Towne He deat snshnetee Rasen Do — wm * 
eat Higuera trainaatea oats Hokiis at adazon aad ti pateaed 2 


Bi SA NIRSS SASS Satay 










oo J 32 


—————— 





he 







y acres ‘ 4 : ‘ , 
Sas i ce 












Suaraoroe ad? te sonetereqe Loran me _sbedeg anita ae : 
— me CM 

tual © oroa⸗ agentes? 4 agt w — 1* ; 

Mae ee 

ont, ak iaracoaeo⁊ mac kot wen tnoine 9 asi? .oa ob of ‘ 


NM a 










iia HA 1 ete. — —1— 


posogoat xed ont sqeoxe * ‘tie silt te mode * 
Pee ii — bie — whet £3 


— dae inbxe oats oxoted nant hoover « ox se vlivol & 
me wy he Ae | at es a BEAL ara ce ee ny age 
temo ae os soumnyta be 


i fi be P ¢ tee we her Ry} Me J ysis 








ose 


concerning the admissibility of the exemplified copy of the 
foreign judgment order and the exemplified copy of the transcript 
of the record of the trial in the Washington court. The trial 
court admitted both in evidence. The only other evidenee produced 
on the trial was the evidence of the plaintiff as te damages. There 
wae an offer of evidence by the defendant which wae refused by the 
court» 

The defendant has failed to include in its bill of 
exceptions the exemplified copy of the transeript of the record 
of the trial of this cause in the Superior court of King county, 
Yashington, wherein the original judgment was entered. Ye are 
thus precluded from examining the enly evidence in the record 
which would threw light on the points in controversy and which 
wan beyond question the determining factor in the ultimate find- 
ing of the trial court, as well as im ite ruling on the offer of 
evidence mace in behalf of the defendant. 

If the defendant had presented te thie court the 
complete bill ef exceptions we would have been enabled, ae the 
trial court was, to exemine fully into the recerd of the Yashingtén 
eourt. it appears from the pleadings, the argument before the 
court and colloquy of counsel, that the missing copy of the 
transeript of the record of that court conteined the complaint of 
the plaintiff there, the sumeons, the return of service thereon, 
the special appesaranee of defendant, the defendant's motion to 
quash the susmons, affidevite in support thereof, setting forth 
that the defendant was mot and had not been engaged in business in 
the State of Washington, and challenging the jurisdiction of that 
court over the person of the defendant, it« motion te have the question 
as to whether the defendant was engaged in business in Yashington 
heard on oral testimony, the ruling of that court denying the motion 


Re; OM 


and te yqoo beditkqaexe at To Wskidinetabn at? giikere sage 
sqieounesd ost? te vqoo bol tifgaoxe ond haa xobee toescmy art, ‘about 
falat ont wed atdgntdas® etd ah fated ‘etd te breve: sae te 
beoubory ceaebiys tedde yfno od soon oIVe ie Heed pegehas twa 
see eeogeneb at an Yiténlede add te eouehie ‘ 3 
os ww hiawtet caw doldy —“ bed w : nshive te xotte or 














“gr ot cbowodee snr gummi, Kaatgtee . 
— asd gt sonebive yine * — — i: bs * on 

delay baa yaowexiace mh vanieg oxft ao datnht vora · ttnow itt 
” spud? cdewtety odd ut todsat gutaterodes et webiseny smoyed sine 


“Ye otis old me puttin adt at wn Low aa atures faba oad Yo ant 


+ ie: pees 








ctuchaeted add te ‘eased mt ahem somestve : 


—* eh OA 


‘sad duwos ets of bedroneny tat smnbmate® ott YE : 

wt ae ebotdane noo eval Muow ow amodéquans Le Lotu oad 
sOsgnisiest off Yo drove eeld ofmd lw? onmtanxe oF gest ‘cmon fabsé 
eal oxtod ——— eat “apni beode rr) ork — a seme 

etd to Yyeo patents ode sneha efeanves ‘to wpeties a tao 





ꝝ tuiaigneo vd doutstuee sue fay Yo dxosex ox? Lo sqtusenant ; 


we Sake é 


amowrosts oolvian te awiox asta —D — ee ‘eetedd Mibentale ae 


By Hi SF 
of mod $c a! tanbanteo oda stusheoteb te sonaxasage leteva⸗ 





| deco’ gnks ton o⸗roa⸗ — we adtvahh ths —D—— os 
uk aeontews at eapegiia sovd Yon host oan fon sew fusbaetod ade tat 
Sattt Yo woksotbatenk ond yutgmottaky due waodyutdoa® 20 stage od 


— it 


oa : 






mot seeup oad ovad od woddont ud? qtmadeotob ↄcuu Yo aos vog avis Rod fuse J 


m uaacavr mb aeonteud al bopeams ame dasbeston ot rostd one 





— 8 wl ‘ 


met sors we wate a rae gmb.ure out Ph canons C Mecpanke — * 





i io — 


oe — 2 — 
Pa ea SS 


ele 


to quash the summons and sustaining the motion te quash or strike 

the defendant's affidavit alleging wont of juriediction, the answer 
of the defendant, the motion of defendant supported by affidavit 

that a third party be made a necessary party to the action and the 
denial of this motion by the court, counter-claim of the defendant 
for judgment against the plaintiff, the offering in evidence or 
filing of eertain contract by the defendant and various motions for 

& continuanee of the hesring on the merite on behalf of the defendante 

Without this record before us we are in no position to 
hold otherwise than that the trial court was correct in sustaining 
the objection to the testimony offered by the defendant in support 
of ite contention that the Washington court was without jurise 
éiction of its persone 

The judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct 
until the contrery is shown, and by reason of the failure of the 
defendant to include the exemplified copy of the transeript ef the 
record of the Yashington court in its bill ef exceptions, we are 
compelled to conclude that the omitted evidenee justified the 
action of the trial court. 

If the sbove reasons are not sufficient for the affirmanee 
of this judgment, still there is ne merit in defement's contention 
that either « corpeorntion or an individual can be a party to a full 
and fair hesring in a court of « foreign state om the question of 
the jurisdiction of that court over the person of the cefendant,s 
and then in an action on the foreign judgment in this state raise 
the eame question again heres 

The case of FrickeReié Supply Goo vs Consolidated A¢juste_ 
ment Coss 197 lle Appe 303, on which the defendant placed its main 
relianee in the trial court and which it cites here is easily 
Gistinguishable from the case at bare In that case the judguent 
was rendered in the District court ef Washington county, Oklahoma, 


sdizia to dusty of motion off painiasaye Sam amomare ss dupug of 
sowens ole ssottpbeat cut to tae gihoesio divabhiie Mh —* neh oat 
sivabttie YE beeroqqes trendo te Re cots om eats — wt he 
of8 baw wehtos sd? of Yttag YXesatoon & ohem ad Young bukdd a fae 












me — wa gut rerte. ont — * — at 3 
get snot ton eveltiay Sas fasbacteb eft yd towsdaes — a 





ants! atsve ak c aay frase dans | at pay pry oad ws BIO 
aqui Hk danhaoted wee ys hosaTle qummiteed sae at meldnahde one 
~otsul, sumitsty eow oes andguddan” oad tantd aottuaaros adh Xe 











— * ee pene at ete yr ae re i rma haey, et: 
ai? Re owutie’ edt to monaet yd baa «awode ab a asl 

od? to dqtronnexd oad to yRao Bette syne — * pe 
ote ow — to Fils 













A one. ze? tuetet Yaa tom 940 simone gra aft XT 
Mitnesues e'steieg teh nt shxem on a omnes Lika sr | fi 
font @ OF YWieg 4 o¢ amp Laubtv hat al 42 Babdoke = , paitand 

to notdeeuy aks a9 eate —R * te xues a —— : ‘ 
stuahestoh elt 2e monrem add vo —2 — add * ** * 


es 


oatne state ads mr — sqioxe? »a⸗ od xoktos aa mi 





— sn fn 
4 vtase at vuad eotty 4 dodtty ban roe 
— — Coat at snd ta saan sat 2 


yi * 


Se 


againet an Illinois corporation without any personal service of 
summons, without the appearanee of an attorney in ite behalf and 
without affording the defendant an opportunity for its day in 
courte 

On the question of whether or not the judgment of a 
foreign state is reg adjudiesta upon jurisdictional questions 
raised and adjudiented there, it wae held by thie court in Cherry 


Xs Chicago Life Ings Coes 190 Tlle Appe 70» 753 


"The substantial question presented has to do with the 
juriediction of defendante by the Tennessee courta. This iseue 
was reiesed by appropriate pleadings in the eave in the Cireuit 
Court of Chester county, and there it was adjudged that the court 
had jurisdiction of the defendants. * * * There can be mo doubt 
that the question of juriediction was adjudicated in the Tennessee 
courts, on a writ of errer sued out by themselves. 

"The claim of defendanta is that regardless of this 
ai judiestion they may raise the same question whenever and wherever 
im any other State than Tennessee suit ie brought on thia judgment. 
After an examination of the cuses cited im support of thie claim, 
we hawe found none directly in point. The deeisions cited by 
defendants have to do with oases where the court entering judgment 
assumed juriediotion but did not expressly consider or pass upon 
the question of its jurisdiction, or where there is a mere recital 
in the j % rendered by the court of ancther “tate that it did 
have jurisdiction, and it was held in L Ve Be 228 ikle 
326, that this mere recital would not prevent the courts of another 
State from inquiring inte the question of jurisdiction. Other of 
the decisions discuss the question whether a court of appellate 
Terteaintion is preeluded from inquiring inte the question of 

uriediction of the lewer court by the fact that defendant may have 
filed « special — — * to contest the point of jurisdiction, 
and when defendant's contention wae overruled filed an angwer to 
the merits of the case. Such a ense is Harkn Bp 98 Ue fe 
476. The ease before us manifestly doex not w nm any of 
these classes, for we have here « ouce where the issue of the 
—————— of the parties wes raised and adjudicated after full 

uring, - all of ch appears from the proceedinga in this case 
and not merely as « matter of recital.” 


Im the Sherry case the court quoted 2 Black on Judgments, 
eece DOLE 
"Before leaving thie point it ia necessary to remark 


that there is good authority for the preposition thet if it 
appears roniy greys the record ef the judgment, and 






thet the defendant had legal notice 
authorized an appearance te be entered for 
him, then he is no i vr at liberty to allege a want of juris- 
diction. The reason of this is obvious. In such a ense, the 
question of jurisdiction would be one of the grounds of cefense 
to the original action, there set up and adjudicated, and of 
course equelly eencludeé with ony other defense. nd hence the 
principle which ferbids a re-examination of the merits of the 


controversy would apply." 





My 
ater 
i> whi 


te osivres Lameeteq vete dwadtiw acktareqrten aheat itt a ‘jontage 
Bite Uteded ad! wi youtteda to Yo sOmexnegee ante sxeddder enone 
i yor vsi rot YWlheustogue sw Pachartos “gai wad notte dosti 

a te Srivayhul eed Yor xo waelteits te aotdeadp bad wo 
ereltacup Lasetdvthairat aog atavthubba pet at od ue at 0 
ꝛcaac ab Suses aldd q Sied caw 32 ,ex0dd bedevtbuthe eae beakan 


ber 400 equ! oS2T OCC g480 sent sthd gaevkd® sy 


geld die ob of aad bodancssg waltaoup faldundedea ett* 

Gwent eid? .etwson sengannet odd —J etunbneted to noitodbalayt, 
| ——— at sey ests arty ey ® porn coy Pod, ‘<a gy tion | 
e309 # dale baphu BD gnge ase, DR » Feo Fé : 
idoch on od uae oxedT * * © .ataabreted wile to ke mittee * 

eeecenneT of? mt bedasl by ube ane tal dtel bed aul, zs goltnan —— ood 

-eveloomcts yo swe feowm terse Ye vice a 

 gaeit ‘te eneLiuegex fad? af edaaduste’ to mbade as 
tsvetedy bua sevyenodw aaiteosp seman ott gubat ‘oad sotdeolaetie 

etrqumoul aid? we dtigeetd af tlie ypesencnoT Higde waite Ye mt 

‘qutale aivit te ¢eenqua wh Bee worse ed? to po corsa ie aad ta 
4a Sodio awolatevh off -+subog mi yldoerke enon eee Sw 
ieemghul, gattedne tives of? cxmin mened Aeie 6b oF — tie 
egy wang to xsobtenos Viaswagne fom bib tad aobiolbalavt, heme 
fetiowx wren af avid ered ve yaoide! bate, a9? te aolidenp 


















bib 22 souks stat yetiens to ¢uve0 ote yt bovebrad dnoayoel att 
efit G28 ydance sv Adystat of phat eee 32 ban bona fg ber . 
wedtona te edaveo eat daevetg ton dlsow Latiows | mise @ad 9d5 


yo tudo  stelseioutevt te aeituenp we 1 sake peck ‘Boek ohess 
— S to ¢1uGo a todieodty neoitear ne — a 

te molévowp ed? ott ukepad & mead 

wvad Yom tasbro'ted todd toa asl yd fangs ‘oat —9 te ‘fi 

| e@eldel Salas, Ye Gated ed? Seeduen Of Metase rage p ochre: 

ee Townes he — 2 he NENOVS HAW sobivesaor a dmahre te 
of a 62 ———— al ease a dee Tite att'te'e hese # 

te UM ite t X Jon #008 YLdeoRines aw — * — 6g BTS 

we eas Yo tind? ont sutde ooo 2 ated oot — sxoarsdo veome 
fivt tedhe haga} dur} as be boetaz aor —*— "eat 2 wot tot be faa 

euee eiad mt — * ome gett eteaqgga Ao —* 
_ “a hies oo8 to ‘Tos tem 8 Lad voecom 2 


— HO Soale $ vesoup due ed% 9909 oul a 





dtameox of aeegon ef ¢k tutoag wile antveed oxat 
* Bh a ié mebshasgota att to%. oa) mort devi bean —* eee 
etnaapaeyt, ats Bo Sroses — ** eed Cbs 
eoises Minelt tal dest @usdaeteh ond Ios ggptdeyst) 63 at iat 2 ek 
62 henedee of of sensueogge ao bonds ; to f 3 
* te a — —— 24 0p — on ot 2 ait — 
eouet o Hove & o & 
‘ehekeo 6 shnworg ants % ——— Fas Fars bay: “fe a + J 
te baw ghegenl bet ba ane don 7* sthhdon Lontgize odd of 
owl? soned Ba .eureted cesta yew fete, oy dioepe 
ea? te adliuem eid to pry scene * whideet Moise 


*, “igus biwow yoxeve 






The defendant ¢ites several eneee im auppert of ites 
contention that the trial court erred in mot permitting it to put 
in evidence showing leek of jurisdiction of the Yashingteon eourt 
ever the person of the defendont, and that it oleo erred in permitting 
the introduction im evidence over ite objection of the jucgment order 
of the Ynshingtom court on the growid that it dic not om its face 
show jurisdictional facts. A careful analysis of these cusen leads 
us te the conclusion that in nome of the enses cited do the facts 
square with the facta im the case at bar. No case cited disclosed 
personal service of summons, appearance of defendant and appesranee 
ef attorneys in behalf of the defendant, hearing and adjuéiesntion 
on the question of jurisdiction and participation in the hearing om 
the merite of the cage in the court ef the fereign state. 

in Ghienge Tithe & Trust Cos v» Nate Storage Oes, 260 

Tlle 485,403-4, the Court, im discuesing the sdjudieation of a 
Jurisdictional cuestion by another court, aid: 

“An estoppel by verdict is but another branch of the 
éectrine of res and it reste upon the same principle 
of law, - that is, ¢ & matter onve litigated between parties 
te a fined judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction cannet 
again be controyerted. When thie doctrine is applied te a 
single question or point arising im the course of litigation 
which has finally been adjudierted it in ¢evignated oo an estoppel 
by verdict, anc the suse question er point eannet again be litigated 
between the same parties in the game or amr other court «<t law or 
in chancery, and neither parted 2 mor their privies, will be permitted 
te allege anything inconsistent with the finding upon that questions 
* * & 

"The deetrine of estoppel by verdict applies te questions 
arising upon an igsue as to the juriadietion of the court «so fully 
and completely as te questions «rieing upon the trial of a couse 
upon its merits, and is not effected by the cireumetenee) that the 
court may ultimately determine that it ean co no farther." 

We are of the opinion that the court belew preperly held 

that the judgment of the Washington court is rea adjudicate upen the 
jurtedietionsel questions which were directly raised and adjudicated 


there 
* — Pinding no error im the judgment of the Circuit court it 
ia affirmed. APY IRMEGe 


Seanlan, Pe Jey and Gridley, Je, coneure 


| 


(eh fo dsegque mi apyot Lenoyvos eetie dmehawtes eff 6.14. 


jug of @2 puhiglaceg tou ad. bexue tunes fai«s anf gad meligsdnee 
euwor aocuotktina’ of? lo metioleelwy, te dest yobwades «ome ohwe aby 


Baksteroy sk botre dela #2 sods tims yimnivestod ad? te noareg aft cove 


aebte deomgo] wid te modderkde wdt ewes sonebive mi omisanbortat att 
sent edt te son bes SF gael? homing edt mo Smee madgmiten a? — 
sheet awaoe seed? ta —ERE ‘Steuse Ao sedout Lami tethabest warky 
aéeat add @8 bodio esaen oof Te omen Bb dad? apbeulones od BF. ant, 
foativers hedio ont Gh ound aa Geode one eee tear oe 
semiicogie bia smabuatod tO sonrznecga aaomy te vobvess Lawedte 
mak ie sik sities ow iMaded ni aypaxbre * 











J — Mr 
— ance if 
aay Eas sory ha 9 Ph F 

— ee 
—EDE— og 
ip > | y > 

pases rims ¥ i ak Gl ~~ +3 

— 


— of wok 9 ‘ote ‘ ‘died: 
poling F * —— 
a i0 % et | 
ald vada  sensdommonts cage pital — 2 amok? 5* at 
*, cartes’ eH an atop 3k desl? ondersedod , 





edt woqe —— prude ao⸗vae⸗ 
bedavé tha as pene ‘teenth oe ‘ 


$3 pies siuert9 sae —* ins rd th ¢ Bt xotee oe 


36301 


oe 
a nn — 


WOYES FP, WATERMAN, 
(complainant below), 


Ve 


RORGE Be HALL, 
defendant below.) 





APVRAL FROM 

ROOSEVELT BROAD & ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT Count, 
BULLLING CORPes a corporation, 

Appellant, 

COOK COUNTY. 
¥e 

BEW Me SKITH and FREDERICK 270 7TA.6 \ 
Le FAKiy 270 1.A. 030 

Appellees. 


WA. JUSTICE SULLIVAN EALIVERED THE OPINION OF THY COURT. 


In the consolidated onse of Noyes Fe Yaterman ve 
George Ss Hall et ale, in which Sen HM. Gnith and Frederick Le 
Pake filed an intervening petition, and in which Barney Krom, 
Arthur Krom and Sadie Krem filed a supplemental bili, a motion 
was made by the Reosevelt Road & Ste Louis “venue Building 
Corporation thet it be made a party complainant te the eupple- 
mental bill, which motion was denied by the Cireuit court. 

Thies appeal followed. 

It appears that after an extended hearing of the sbove 
entitled esuse the trial court orally announeed its finding May 
16, 1932, but that no decree was entered until June le, 1932; 
that the sppellanty after the court had orally announeed ite 
éecision, gave motice that it would appear on Jume 1, 1952, and 
ask leave to become a party complainant; that it did appear on 
that date and offered,in support of ite application to become a 
party to the proceedings,a deed dated May 19, 1952, from the 





guaAwMaTae »% 
ig Coded — 


eink enna 
— J 


thea 


— zon w yebiiGy —— 


_ BR, MATa md 


ee 


etaves TWAT 





al TAGE PD 


— 





——— an «0 worm0 ant casevtgss oman arrest « at 
— odd at og sate 





ee 


Kroms to the Roosevelt Koad & Ste Louie Avenue Building Gorperation, 
conveying the property which was the subject watter of the supple- 
mental bill of the Krome and « cortificate of incorporation im preper 
form uncer date of May 2, 1932. It alse appeared that Barney Krom, 
Arthur Krom and Secie Krem, complainants in the supplemental bill 
and greantors im the deed, were alee the owners of all the stock of 
the appellant corporction and the officers and directors of seme. 

The appellant contends that ite eapphicotion te become 
a party to thie litigation shoule have been allowed on ite showing 
that it had saequired an intexeet im the subject matter of the 
litigation, and thst since thet interest was acquired subsequent to 
the oral finding of the sourt and prier te the entry of the deoree, 
ite motion wan made in apt time. 

The reeoré does net diaclese the rensen fer the Krems 
incorporating a the Roosevelt Road & St. Louis Avenue Building 
Corporation, sor the reason for the conveyanee of the title and 
interest of the Eroms individwelly in thia preperty te the Krome 
incorporated after the court had announced ite finding. ny 
interest that the corpeorstion acquired in this property was 
represented by the grenters, the Krome, in their appeal from the 
deeree of the Cireuit court. (See our opinion in the appealed 
case Gens Nose 36390, thie day filed.) 

it wae entirely wanecessary that the Krome, orgeniaed 
SS & Corporation, be permitted to become a party te the procecding 
fer the purpese of appealing when the Krome imiivicuslly were 
already parties and ¢id appeal from the dveeree and represented 
the identical interest in the veal estate. 

444 not err in denying the motion of the appellant ani the order 
of the ‘oireust eourt is therefore affirmed. 
S@amlanyg 2 Je_ and Gridiey, Js» concure 


aie 


etelisvoqued gabhiivS swavva ehwel .82 & bao dkevennell od of sword 
~algaus od@ 20 79dden Seotduy edd caw daide yseogetg odd gabgeriee 
neqeug al tatkisnogrtoent to etecltidier 2 bas ameut watt te site iasaen 





gated Yetenk Sorte dotasgge oake IL «BORE QOR Yall oe stab nbau aco 
Lil Lodwomelquts std mh adanctelqwoo qemu olbat ban ovewk easier 
f te aoote ef [ha to axonwe ade samthamiliamemadh 3?) oo go 


i sities to bee esoeh ite ef? bin Seleaxeques — oats 
ae wmuoed ef mottavttgae 34 dacs ubustmen ——— Ce rs 





. —— eae te ertae ails oo toizg bum tes ot w gabon tink ode 
+ oaths qa mt ebem aww —“ 
«Rote ad aot weeens ort cag loads tant g908 Syeged val J as te 







4 matottas euneyA wltol +86 # dawk steven 
4 where ould te oonexs vas⸗ vat * 








aa ooeoorg oats * yen a | samoed oe th 
; oven At rvnn dat emo oe * aa Lee 


* 


fei * 





36349 gf 


ALBERT GARTHER and 
LIZLIE GARTHER, 
Appellees, 





APPEAL PROM MUNICIPAL 
GOUL?T OF CHICAGO. 


Ve 
AIBMT We ShIVSL and 


GUY Le YAGOHRR, ea mi at 
APG 2 7 0 L.A. 630*8 


MR» FJUSTICA SULLIVAN OFINIGN OF THR COURT. 


Action ene brought im the Municipal court by plaintiffs 
/lbert Gartner and Linuie Gartner, aguinst Albert ©. Seidel, Guy 
ie Wagoner amd Pe Ae Clarey, to recover 91100 alleged to have 
been paid by plaintiffs for stock in the Diversey Parkway Hoapital, 
Ince, @ corporation (hereinafter referred toe as the Diversey Parkway 
Hespiteal.) iefendant Glarey was never served with summons and did 
mot appear, and on motion of plaintiffs suit was diagmiaued an to 
hime The case was tricd by the court, without a jury. and 
jucguent was rendered in favor of plaintiffs for 01400, including 
am allowanee of $300 attorney's fees, from which defendants appealed. 

The case proceeded to trial on plaintiffs' amended statee 
ment of claim whieh alleged that Hay 26, 1930, Aibert “. Seidel amd 
Guy le Wagoner, whe were recpeetively president and seeretary and 
wleo directors of Diversey Parkway Hoapital, a corporation organized 
under the laws of the State of [liinoie, sold through Clarey, their 
agent, to the plaintiffs Clase “D" securities, without complying 
with the provisions of the Illinois Securities Act, which securities 
consisted of four certificates of stock in the Diversey Parkway 
Hospital, two of them cach being for five shares ef preferred stock 
of the alleged value of $100 a share and the other twe cnch being 
for ten shores of common stock of the alleged pur value of 65 a 


| 











fee BGS EM wi hap 


| GAS OTUNE MOU CARLA “ 
: oe ADS Wa Pui eee mtd aah oo Sa 


08a. Oy a eee | J 


otsO Sky Th KOLMe an? axxtvumt’ —8 corm at 


Bs aK ae Se eo ee iil 
uttldutaig we truer Loytotauct odd ab dawond se | 











Piet kg 6327 ct 











iss 


“wo gkented o¥ exnak Pastas — oth 

peel 98 bepeile OOLLk sevens og serene am! vi den wenegey a a 
stad hqooil yooturk v.s aovtd add mi ꝓooon wh axꝛtantala yh diag mood 
Yala Ypewovs! as om OF hewseter 1 nak o-a08 | 


bib ac amame ate Devan Toren sem * 


ew 


aoteds —— —E— * — ot be 
bata Lubied oF ¢redfa eO8OL 4ae we uit ia 


age 


share; that May 26, 1930, the defendonts as president and seoretary 
of the aforesaid corporntion signed, sealed and executed the above 
mentioned four certificates of atoek and delivered them te Clarey, 
the agent of the corporation, fer delivery to plaintiffs, who are 
new the holders and owners thereofy that these certificates were not 
exempt from compliance with the previsions of the “ecurities Acts — 
that plaintiffs paid the corporation $1100 for the certificates of 
stock, but have aince tendered them to the defendants and demanded 
the return of their moneys and th<t defendants have refused and #t121 
refuse to return the money. 

im theiy mended affidavit of merits defendants deny all 
the material allegations of the smended statement of claim and aver 
that plaintiffs became purchasers of the stock in the Diversey Parke 
way Hoopital under a preorgani«ation agrecments that the orgonisers 
ef said corporation determined to abandon ite eerperate exictenge 
ang surrender ite charter and returm to the subseribers the money 
paid by the holders, or if they did net desire te sccept the return 
of their money and eo indicated there would be purchised for them 
an equivalent amount ef etock in the Herth Chiexngo Mespital, ines, 
that plaintiffs requested the purchase ef stock im the North Chicago 
Heepita}y that such purchase was made and the stock tendered to 
them, which stock was refusede 

Upon the trial defendants stipulated that the stock of 
the Diversey Parkway Hoepital hac mot been qualified under the 
‘ Securities Agte 

Lizale Gartwer testified thet May 12, 1920, she and 
Albert Gartaer subseribed for twenty shares of comuon and ten 
shares of preferred stock of the Diversey Parkway Hospital and 
paid on account to Glarey $275, with a cashier's cheek of the 
Lakeview State Sank bearing the sume date, and that May 26, 19509 
on behalf of herself and Albert Gartner, che paid 9625, the 


exadorocs hue dnebionny ae aémobweked gulf gOU8L gO8 toh Sort Gouda 
— odd Sedweous bac Sehooe aranyhe seldwroqnes Dlseotole oe * 
ayetale of amAd Sexevided bua doosa Se sedned thit99 suet operand acrsau 
oxn tdw goThtentalg of yxevifed rod «eeksevequed ‘ed? tp dnege wt 
fom ory pntcotthixes saad? sald prootedt exatind baa avedsed one won 
| $204 wolebavne® até Yo umetotvenq df dil eonntiqnes ev sqm 
* aosenlikexes salt x02 QULEG wektwregros exe tte arekyathady tele | 
babies ee edo tee ted ak? of mad MteteOd wonte oved td aleete 
Aor bee Senses oved sémohacted dude dam pyenve ted? te mates emt 
| syenon odd wmuden Of ons ‘ 
| Lin ywob atnabacted ethcent Ye ghvnditta — — Leal aay 
: ove bin wlate Yo insmeteds bebuimn sat Y8°s bs. ee 
oats ysnterhd add wi deeds od be stenade 
Avon aauanvs wits sch Hinewerse ‘ab foxtnagzeont & wohus Esthquall yw 
 senadelne —2 ott ihnede od ovate te — ae 
unten afd s¢00de OF oxtied Jom bED qodd TE de yeeut a a 
‘mods 50% fovrlotug oo Dive oteds hodootiat ov ‘a yesuat aten i 
r ont tanra⸗ ei opts await et abe te enema we — 





























gd betehned dewtn od ae om onc tne tencigeek 
te Hoorn was ja’ ditt veeabosate —— — 2 oa we ? 













at Gi a ,· konnoe ⸗ —* wie 

ee — — “ 

hoe te Mout ——— o ere vi era * i (ita 
* blog ote ———— — — nit 








ose 


balanee of the subscription price of the stock and received on that 
date four certificates representing the stock subscribed for, signed 
by Guy Le Wagoner, aa secretary, and Albert We Seidel, an president 
of the corporations 

It appeared that defendants Guy lL. Wagoner and Albert 
Seidel were in fsct seeretary and president of this corporation and 
that the ecoxrporstion had employed Clarey te sell the stock to plain- 
tiffag thet he also hnd charge of the sale of all stock sold ac the 
financial agent of the corporation. It also appeared that the total 
amount collected from the sale of stock wis $14,917.07 and that of 
this amount $4,140 was paid to Clarey on account of organization 
expenses, $1,262261 for miscellanequs expenses, such as salary of 
stenographer and bookkeeper, rent, telephone, telegraph, printing, 
etees, $1,447 was refunded to subscribers and 94,147+46 was used to 
purchase stock in the North Chicere Hospitale 

Defendants contend: (1) That the steck sole to plaintiffs 
wae not Class "D" stock ac the same ic defined by the Illincis 
Seeurities Aetg (2) that, although they were respectively president 
and seeretary of the Diversey Parkway Hospital, they did mot sell 
ner “knowingly perform any act or in any way further ouch sale" of 
stook to plaintiffe; (3) that the eteck isgoued to plaintiffs was 
purchased by them under preorganiastion subscriptions te the enpital 
ateck and that therefore under the terms of the [llinois -ecurities 
set there was no necessity for qualifying the stocks (4) that the 
contract for the sele of the stock wae not absolutely void but merely 
voideble and plaintiffs, having elected to take steck in the North 
Chicago Hespital im lieu of the stock subscribed for in the Diversey 
Parkway Hospital, are not entitled to recevere hae 

This section was brought under clause 1 of section 57 of the 
Securities Act, Cahill's Ile Reve Ste, che 32, pare 290, which 


provides as follows? 


ted? om Sevieovs due deate ott Ye vaiwg aossgiaoedve ode YO —J—— 
— setanltiasee: mek efab 
deedbiaore oa giphios o® Seesils Sum qenederesa ne _ aeoge¥ —* 
4 oseck Gre occon a oi ye otreseeteh Sesid bommonge SL. J 
aes Mphtowogees esd te teeblanug ben Yraderoon doo mf exew Lobiet 
wthalg @f sivade oda Sion of qwandd beyokqae hed mekdexoquea edt tant 
elt an bie xoote Lhe te ofes edt 20 omtetio deal enka od todd qweig 
_ £eded wf? ted? wotacqae sake 2h smeisateqzes add ie dope Letomapt? 
to gads baw VO.T£ dL) sew doote Io eee mid moet Asdowdion Sarees 
Hotjanineyye 30 fesooge wo youald o¢ io tnwome atad 
to Yvelas ca dows sevannges samometioondae sot SeeRES, £5 saeasiogua ! 
anyat aest au gtignageted qaumdqeled ataex ateqgewisiend? bux redgoxgeacée 
(Os hong saw Gio TbL,6) Oxo evedivecdia oF dohauten caw TdykE yoots 
etodkgesl egeeid? seuet oft at oote * 
ettiénialg of fen dooia vid del? (£) t dnodeos admebae Ros 
ghomb ler ade ws bontied ak onan od aa Hoose “O* woakd teaiese , 
éaobineny geoa sotsiewons 
iiee som dl Youd adatigast yowdsat youtwrht ocd to yendersew & 
tt “aioe down tedeast yaw uta 2 SO soe Gite anR cog: vabwont” 
wae OtRieale o2 eaval seese oeiv geste (2): — — 
isdiqan et@ of enotiqizondue naldsniuagueeng tohet sede yo booadomey 
solsiswooe abOmbi£t add te uamtnd od wehmn Sweets! soclt dma toute 
edd dastt (8) yoods edd ymtyahtomp wd Yetonvooe om sum oxeE HOA 
‘phoron ded bor “lotwioede som sow Aooda ec? Ye show ot ek ia — 
amn adi mb Moore oted ot bodvete yatvad yudtiontaly Ma, * dabtov 
we Def mnons to san sae And wer anne ott ag | 
_ dodihe (IER v amg 68S ost godt —— wt £okdad 9$0n aondin , 


Fa — eR Ce eee ee eee 






























“Every sale and eomtract of sacle mde in vieletion of any 
of the previsions ef this sct shall be void at the election of the 
purchaser, and the eelivr of the securities se sold, the officers and 
Girecters of the seller, and each and every solicitor, agent or broker 
of or for auch seller, whe sh=ll have knowi performed any act or 
in any wey furthered ouch sale, shall be jointly and severeliy liable, 
im an action at lew or im equity upon tender to the eclier or in court 
ef the securities seid, te the purchaser for the amount paid, the con- 
sideration given or the value thereof, together with hie reaconmble 
attorney's feces in ony action brought fer such recevery.* 

Defendants urge uncer their first contention that tae 
burden was on plaintiffs te prove that the steek sold wax Class "*D* 
stock, and that they foiled to make proof to that effect in that 
nothing appeared in the recerd exeept the stipulation of the parties 
that the securities im question were not qualified uncer the Tllinois 
Securities Act. The onse of Piot vy. Chartrand, 257 "lle Apps 117, 
elteé by defemiants, held that wider ace, 37 of the Securities Aet 
the burden of proef that the eteck sold waa in Clasa “D" wes upen 
plaintiff but that once it appeared that the steek was in Clase “D", 
defendant: then bad the burden ef establishing eny exeauption relied 
upon as a defense. It is agreed that this is a correct preneunecenent 
of the lswe Im that case all that wae offered by way of evidence 
was the gertificate of the secretary of state eortifying thet the 
corporation had filed no statement im his office ac provided im 
peta. 7 and 9 of the “eourities sot and it wes there contended, 
the certificate having beon introduced in evidemee, that the burden 
wae upon defendant to show that the sale of stock did mot fali within 
the provisions of the Act. Wo evidence whatever was offered in that 
ease as to the histery of the company, ite assets or liabilities, 
ite solvency or involveney, nor ac te the character of the stock 
under the Illimeis Securities Act. Im that case the court in our 


opinion properly held as above indicatede 
Im addition to the stipulation that the steck involved 
had not qualified under the Act, the evidence in the case at bar 


shows that May 2, 1950, the viversey Parkeay Hospital received — 


ite charter from the “ceretary of State of the State of TaAinelse / 


ae eaters Ta Na sey os tine te. oldd Ne ox 
— waoad ae ine a yaodieiiee ‘uwye bre done bess 


333,20" yt eae nek go Ty — yi 7 Ma —— 
o wk to teiiea ed? of xebaed 


Sage "3 tod Se 
— 682 biog —— oa so% ——— —2—— — —— 
2 sin cerlée 
— —Rö poeta Ayr ate didguerd py fle ne Te i —— 


tl 
| @it$ goal? moddne dupe gett shed’ whan ogee admabaote 






i 


ii 


a 





Si aeald sow bles foote ost? tal? ovexq of — wo. ane 
“ gastt wi Gostte dad oF Yoong visu oF boktet yl? ‘att baw * — 
——— 


——— on? ‘te noléatuatye ass eqonxs brevet ‘esi ak dorasega padsdion 
mtoutsst ois "eo bane beltitasp tom Avv worse ik solace “oid gest 
cis eT itt ves sluuintam 0% 208% te eae ‘aT “aoa ———— 
tos aoké fearos? ‘sts Ye ve .0o— cobens tastd tos — owt bedte 
‘eaw "a" pak? mi gow ies sooas este ‘tate ‘com te ——— 
— yaak® at sw ines u oats toed besooygs a cone teil ‘tud ‘hhssiatg 
boiler tek Jeger xe wis sitttah iéodoe * — — oa adh ‘pedi bate 
—E sy doorren s ‘al ghd ats beous rig ball “seaastob a * abae 
——— 6 wad i eGR nde Veal 9th Seal da ie “tae ee 
“pity Saste Quigtlires sdade Yo qiatetone olf? te sdecitiénes ‘el? aw * 
‘ah bobivosy te obit ald af dnomedade om betty bat tei toro 8 
 ghobasiites sxodd sow d2 bete do! eobizzmel aad to © be a 
ashe ast tadd yobaobhtve at peowboxtak oad ‘gatved’ spi= : 
mbiidtw Lfe% tom bib Sooda te ofon odd Saskd woda of Aaohavtod som nogu eat 
tad mt boxotito uaw tewotadw eonontve olf .#o) sit? J— — 
— ——— Tae | 
aoote etd te setootado eels od oe reer ewomeviosat or * —9 
‘co wt dao ald ‘oano Bests a “eto ——— oaiett i oa whew 
bovievut doote od daily ‘ian stig —— aa 
— »»— “ bie does 
sachs bevieows Eadtqaait ‘euliat Yoovevad oate 


\ satoar tet te ebade wid to ange to Yu exses 5 ai 


























ofa 


charter wae recorded in the Keeerder's offiee of Cook county, May 

9p 19303 that the corporetion wae organized fer the purpoece of 
erecting a hospital at 731 Diversey Porkway, Chiengo, Tllineiss that 
ite capital etock of $2,500,000 wae divided inte 91,000,000 ef 
preferred stock of the par value of 9100 » share, and $500,000 of 
commen steck of the par velue of 95 « shares that the seven original 
ineerperatora, twe of whom are the defondenta in this ense, were alao 
the only subseribers and the directors for the firat yeorg that these 
seven subscribers subserihed for « tetnl ef 490 shares of common 
eteck for which they paid §2,0003 that omly $14,917.07 was collected 
from the sole of stock and that this asgunt comprised the total 
assets of the corporation; that three months after its organization 
the corporate project was abondoned and thot ouch part ef the money 
realiseé from the sale of stock au bad wet been apent for organization 
purposes was either returnec to the subseribers or used te purchase 
stock in another venture, The Korth Chiesgo ligapitale 

Sece 3 Of the “eouritiies Agt, Cahili's Tle Revs “te, 

Ghe 325 pare 256, Glasoifies securities into feur general divicions, 
which are as follows: 

“(1) Securities, the inherent qualities of which aacure 
their sale and disposition without the perpetretion of fraud, which 
shall be known as swourities in Clase *A’y : 

(2) Seeurities, the inherent qualities ef which, or in 
the mature of one or beth parties te the sule thereel, aseure their 
sale and disposition without the  ceeataiaaa of fraud, which shall 
be ae securities im Clase *h'3 

) Securities based on eatabliched incewe, which shell 
be known ae securities im Claus 'O'; 

(4) Seeurities based on prenpoctive income, which shall 
be known ae weeurities in Class 'P*.* 

Sees 3 of the Yeeurities Aet defines Glass "3" securities 
as follows: 

"All securities ether than those failing within Class ‘A's, 
°B*, 'c’ and other securities of organizations described es ‘invest~ 
ment truste,' and ‘investment contracts,’ respectively, ukail be 
known as secwrities im Ciees 'Dte” 


Thies amd other sections ef the Securities act were construed 


/ WAX a Uiemee Mand, 20 eat aae x nodrenon ett at hebrones cer rotund 
, (X0 noua sds cot hoxkmapra aoe simiyavegnes atl Jaci yoreL qf 
⸗ou⸗ fetontlil. yogevid® qysmitot eer tn Kadtavod 9 aadasera 
(| RO 9804900488 ofat Hedivth aav 060.000,08 Yo Hoods Loliged, aff 


ia Ma, 


Ye 00050086 dew qouady » GOS To guar rg Md Yo anode. J 
| pacroteng 





fankgize avves aid god qorunde 2 (28 Ye eukey we enld to dota comueo 
cake etew geens ‘obese oh wifinbreked oa⸗ om wort: ‘to ‘od satodsreqxoont 
ougiis dastt gtaey font? arta zo exsioorth os toe axel readin vine ald 
 enmens 20 votate one ‘te Lovet « set Dedixpadse wavdispedon ‘usve 
betoniten ame Os P84 b0 “hee taste 1000484 biaq ved? doldw te¥ dente 
_ fotos oxi bond sqmoo — 2 tact sma Neots a sine od met 


J 


nobdazhasy 2s adh ate ants conte oo ns Soa taolsoroques ad te adeoas 
ene witt Yo F508 dame soule araodereca aen obolaea oteraqzee oft 
* “wg. va 


felspniuegre Tei shoge muge tee bad wa koode 20 okew edt mor? 0 
euadowwg a¢ boa ta — od 09 bormasex watts ‘soe encour 
— sath earn Arse edt eemtere safes st Sea, 

_ aede Ye 4 wt ddd 2 FQK pakitamees ant 39 § 0908 


aie oF 
MW Letanen Au oiat aetdiamen esl Mesats dos amg ot a = 


ae 


aa —* 


— * vt soe — — 
ane ‘ae —T — — —— — ——— 
eS a: —R9 os aedtung M me 














* sank. ‘a 

“Etaite ito dte — E bodetidstas ao Seead eehslags ot ve ee 
_ 9%O* sua? at eetet * es | : 
iitacly do tee — beige ag > a toad aol iiuwest — 
as ⸗ac ak were on 


: ye — — 
— * ease eogtisd 0. aviztmns® ee * J 








Se Sh Made em 
* ae 
era 7 x meee Fs 
. on 


ght — be ¢ w * * .. & * 
——— wa hbedtzoand empl 2s ant ‘So ae té 4 
wd Aiea ¢tlavddpeqess ‘seteangans, ond 





“fe 


im Abreme ve Loves 254 Tlle Apps 42%, im which the court said on 


page 432% 

tAty ‘RY and ‘0° Fenpectively, shall be knew as securitios ia 
Gh cdess ‘bts to cliniante classes tA? 'B' at tgr.8 

In the same opinion we read on page 4540 

be ther shnoe' Ate tattgr‘tainssitetete suber pisme teres 
lodge, except as tlase 'D' securities." 

On page 436 we find the following language: 

"To ee the burden upon the plaintiff of proving that the 
<P teakvariae tae — ciiaues Tananaed or eee kagiekamere Glan” | 
it enmocted the statutes" 

It ie apparent from the facts disclosed by the evidence 
and the history of this corporation that the stecks seld did net come 
within Classes "A", "5B" or "CG", as defined by the Sceurities Act. 

It must, therefore, have been utock that came within Claas "D*. 

Ve find no merit in defendants’ second contention that they 
as president and seeretary ef the corporation dic mot directly sell 
nor “knowingly perform any act or in amy way further such sale” of 
stocke It is only necessary to point out that when they attached 
their signatures te the stock certificates they performed an act that 
furthered the sele of this steck. ‘ithout their signatures en the 
certificates this stock could not have been sold. They alse furthered 
the sale of thia stock as officers of the Liverscy Parkway Hoapitai 
by the employment of Clarey as the finnneial agent of the corporation 
te sell all of the stock thet was sold, including the steck sold co 
Plaintiffs. Although but $14,917.07 was collected frvem the sale of 
the stock, $5,527.61 wae paid te Clarey orfor expenses incurred in 
connection with the organization of the corperetione. Although 
éefendants did not know plaintiffs personally and did not directly 
soll them the stock they made it possible for Glarey to sell it to 


them and it therefore follows thet they d4d knowingly perform acts 


— —— — 


3 es —— — 
aa a at 


tded Spey me eos bw molatge sata : 
A rte SL rae es oe 
‘vysiristel gatwotor oud tut ww ous . = 


ait? daetd grbvang Yo Titdaiaty ol 3. eiad uc oele aig ot eaedis veree, 
— #aetts edd ovat bkuow faa ond vohwy batqmes tom poner 
_ dete a * —B——— ——— edt gatyoxtasd: 












uk 0 mathe aah 
eh soote ‘or aaa 





vomsiye ods “et beaatent —* po ak aan pwd Pore by 

ame é som 2h fee woods ext? sats watsorogn0e aldd to wmnedit ad 
$904 aebdivumes edt qt ponlteh aa." “0 ‘wa aie : — 

Rl weal? mbdiiw aun “talk teele med ‘oak — ar —* 

vaei⸗ — motensines bneose tatunbae'tes at A evn on at 9 et é 
few vdveuks son bi’ noltésxoques ache * eaters os + tmeatoore 0 

ie ‘Solna dong vests wow issn at x0 4 on xa axpisos, ge 

— pnaktond tea world fpustee ‘Yale due inkeg Pr sgisenste pay 

tai? gen ao bemsetueq yodd meas tit aed tones odd 6 ue * 

esti ‘9 eeavdonsta thotti — nba ‘add 

de waazar ———— 






















motsonoese aldo — — mtd 
#2 bkee Moots oul’ guhdutomh a: all “hott a ho 
* shee ett wos? betoo thee saw » RONNIE oes * 


-, whbebekh tom tes ‘tie <i Kotipecog « ‘is i 
ae ah ed eo — erty stats 5 ie 


ote 


that furthered the sales In the onve of Abrame vo loves supra, 
the court in discussing this question aeid on page 439% 


"To agree with the contention of appellants that because 
it dees not appear that either Leve or Simensen took part in 
the particular sale involved in this suit and because t both 
denied they had any knowledge of the sales to appellee, t eannot 
be held liable to the purchaser, is in effeet, to held that they 
might be liable criminally for knewingly performing some act or in 
some way furthering sales generally but could eseape civil liability 
as to any resulting sale they did net specifically further or know 
about. A rather anomalous result. It would seem more consonant 
with reason to held thet when one knewingly performs acts and in some 
way furthers sales generally, he shall be Liable to any purchaser the 
game ag if what he did te further sales generally had been directed | 
to the consuemeation ef each anle th«t results whether he had kmowledge 
of the effort of « soliciter te make thet particuler sale or note* 


238 Tlie Appe 4435 445, where there was a judgment against the 
president and seeretary of the corporation for noncomplianee with 
the provisions of the Securities Aet, the following language wae used 






In the cave of Vehywein SMA ir AMER 





by the eourts 
"The eenee of fraud is not o condition ef Liabili 
of any one selling or furthering the sale of such stock. The statute 


eubraces ali such transactions, whether made in good faith or note 
whether it is o harsh law and may frequentiy work an injustice is ne 
concern of this court. The legislature pissed the law end the Supreme 
Court held it constitutional. if it is shown that the company did 
net comply with the statute, and the defendente seld or knowingly pere 
formed any act in any way furthering the sole of auch securities, they 
are Liable upon a tender of the certificate of stecke* 


In suppert of their third contention thet this stock was 
purchased under a preergeniszation subscription to the capital stock 
and that as such it was unnecessary to qualify it uncer the 
Securities Act, they stress the point thet one subscription form 
undated, and « similer form under date of May 1, 1956, in the 
felleving language were signed by plaintiffs or one of thems 


“I hereby aubseribe for five unite of the capital stock 
of the Diversey Parkway Hospital, Ines, which is e corperstion to 
be organized under the laws of State of Tllinoins : 

“It te hereby understood and agreed that certifientes 
will be issuec te me when the corporation is duly organized, and 
it is further understood and egreed that esid corporation will be 
organized within thirty daye from the dete hereofs 

"If onid corporation is not orgemized within thirty days 
from this date then I will receive «11 of the money paid in on this 








pooh ——8 giiecauests ak éuvoo ett 





aevamed @. a Napa on Rigen Dayna agi 

— —— copy es pl weet yp snag Diag Red 
aised ' pre nly wong tena —* mabe ak bevioval slew —— j 

toonas Yous geetioggs of watew alt te Saul yore beads 


eghetwsral 
yerts tatid Dhasl of g#oekte mk ek yxenesioung oft Of efdalt bho 
wehkianes Zt ahh sowing 2 —— dg — tn me po be po 
vio eqeoee 
work 1 vetoes ——— on ye “aoe —— oF Ba 
samen wre ween Okaew th «tinge sola * 
—— us Sh aon garotioy satan one ome ede date ated ad 04 mons te 
Tanke es eldal ifede wt syitoue sakes * {ar 
| Resovalh yg vULoreneg welas tetera e238 ig ‘Basin “UE * 
vno twos bat oi toddeetw sdfiecet gods eLeas done to weivamatenes — 
Seton te ekee Kekwed stag told ni fete gs eng gts Po oe ode 


e222 Seareves opel ng? smechons ow mtwmestee ed ete a iy 
aft damtana srommhul, a sow grodé oxosiw fo fos ae set oat 

aigiw wenaliqueoses xot sottmmguac eh? Ye Wend orvvn baa Inohtees 
heat gaw opargaal gutweiioh mit tps wotedsuo st one * * 








FOR AL Ye ML dh De 


edad a dears 
tom EO maar a? & 


om wl soffastat ms axew sale ae 3 
ois ye agd tue wal ond oe totaly T #4 
& wages ods Ines — #2 et 
oueq Yprtivenl xe bfLou af ) — —V 
—* e aros doom ta 6 qew “ys — 
he “stints te eénalitewee oat, to et A 


—— qea sat? cao gets tues ovidt tees be Swequne a | 
Hoota Latigae add og noi igh aoa cu⸗ Wot sondaoyroo wy % tobaw b 


add tober ¢k Wiitagy oF Yreonsoona paw ah aAnus om er * 
aro? moliqgiwadwe ane tet? dephon, sede oneeda vaste fos apts duos 















tamed? 2a enm so etilialely yd tombe otew egeupent gubwod 


pe Satiqna ade pele ety 79%, iene econo 1 
a ——— a of iia J 
a 30 ovat 


— theese at's beotas 


od dike an olen aban Sat ae —— — 
a oe 
® eexhele mislds te Jon — 
old oh Sr Sia ee ba 


aay 








t 


8 


preorganication aubscription without deduetion of any nature," 

This is beyond question a preerganization form ef sub- 
scription but it cam hardly be seriously contended that plaintiffs 
are precluded from recovery simply because the agent of this eor- 
poration had them sign this form of subseription. Plaintiffs 
insist that it wae many days after the corporation had been organised 
and the charter issued to it thet they subseribed for the stock. 
The charter waa iesued to the Diversey Parkway Sospital May 2, 1930, 
and by reason of the fact that one of the stock subseriptions was 
dated May 1, 1920, defendants urge that it was conclusive that at 
least one of the subscriptions was made one day prior to the ineore 
poration of the Diversey Parkway Heapital. 

There is some conflict im the evidenee as to the date of 
the stock subseriptions. Flaintiff Liasie Gartner was pésitive in 
her testimony that she subscribed for the stock May 12, 1930, the 
same date thet che made the initial payment of $275. Her bank book, 
whieh was in evidences showed a withdrawal of thot amount on that 
Gate, and the cashier's check of the Lakeview State Bank for thet 
amount, aise in evidences, which was purchosed by her with the money 
withdrawn from her bank account and which was given to Clarey as 
first payment on the stock subseribed for, correberated her testi- 
mony» The balance of the subscription $925, was not paid until 
May 265 19530, and the certifieates of steck were iseucd on that dates 
Tl any event we feel thet the trial court, having heard the evidence 
and having hed an opportunity te observe the witnesses, was justie 
fied in finding regardless ef the character of the subscription form 
used by the corporation and presented to the plaintiffs for their 
signatures, that this subscription wee not a preorgani«stion sub- 
seription for capital steck but. wes a subscription for stock that 
was made and the certificates evidencing seme issued after the 
incorporation and the issuance and recording of the charters. 


eS 


*, camden yaa te gelvewbss gugidiw noligitocdia —* 
due to wteh mobdaekaogieew & webdeomp izea wh whe? ~~ 
eYEteniale dod Sedmednee yhiwolvoe o¢ yhoied mew $2 ind mokiqgiaoe 
~te9 side %o tee ons oosingod ‘legac Ereveess wott bohudoowy oe 
wihednied wel sadaondive ‘te mete? alae nal mode had notdendG 





sis —— 


_—  ehoaite ants Led Gedhwwedie yodd gacld $2 64 Dowenk e Rad * 
eean Qe welt Lob iqeel wenden yowtowlt ade OF Bonet ow sebteste 
‘gaw eaghighvendia dneds odd %¢ oxo tauid tont tlt Yo, some wh Del 
te seats evinulonen sow $2 Sod? epw admabaetoh 068d ok walt besa 
— eit of <odsg, Wh OMe Shan eax eMOLITE IEG elt te oN SonMt 

| shadiqed! youlusl yoatewls ads Yo — 

to efah odd af em comentys add at toi ftage cmon ab ered coy of) 

ai evidineg naw temtued shoshd Tiiiateh «enmecaqhvondua — pda 
oa gOC0L 4.8L qali Meesn ede vot sedtxoedue eda dads wont soos tod 
Abos anes a ae — Lokstab oats hye esta, todd 9a V 
fat? no inven aattd to Lavoxbddty a bewade qoouebive at now datdy 
 Bedt 30% dan of08% wobvotat oft Yo desde a'xahdeae silt 2 — 
⏑———— 
as Yueld of mevdy cow Moidw Same famgaee inn seek oe ewan held bw 
ehtuvd resi codauodortae ~ 20% oodiveadus xeotu oss mo snosrpoy fonkt 
Skins stag fod enw 18589 mokighresdyn afd Ye somekad of? «yee 
sand gad? we Seanad oxow doode te aedapitidree eft he gOC0L aOR. yal 
voroatve of biaed gaived gtxmwe Jalad of? dost Seek ov. dueyo, yeh, 
stdout, naw gsonapnd te ald ovsends of yeimeirogye me bad gubvabaw 
20% meliqisvadua std Ie sedvetado ost — — 2AM 
Abe⸗ vot atttent ely on of bodnoddag. bas mokdoroq x00 * a 
odvp Holtnxinayreeng a tom now nelegixgedye a! 7 yo 
fasts noes 0% nauwear — tate —— 
—E—— byes Mish —B———— 





















“R= 


Defendants advanced further orguments under this eon- 
tention but inasmuch as they were predicated on the theory that 
the aubscriptions were preorganiaation aubseriptions, and we 
have cencluded that the trial /uns warranted in holding otherwise, 
it ig unneecesary to consider theme. 

Defendantea' fourth contention that plaintiffs carmeot 
revover because they agreed te tuke stock im the North Chivago 
Heepital im lieu of the stock of the Diverecy Pexrkway Moepital, 
after they had been advised that the Diversey Parkway Hespital 
project had been abandoned, is untenable, 1% is difficult to 
Belicve that these innocent and unmvary victims, having been taken 
in ence and having been apprised of the fact, would willingly and 
unhesitatingly fall for Clarey's blandishments the geoond time. 

It in urged that they were offered the opportunity of receiving 
beek their cach or putting it inte the some number of shares in a 
similar corporation, amd they chose the latter course. The 
plaintiff Lizsie Gartner in her testimony insists that thet was 
Mot the fact. che testified that when she heagd thot the “iversey 
Parkway Hospital project had been abandoned she immediately went to 
Clarey and demanded the return of the money paid by herself and 
Albert Gartner for the Diversey Parkway Hospital stock and that 
Glarey, holding three checks in his hand, stated that he could not 
pay her unless and until she signed a paper which he presented to 
her an¢d that he surreptitiously accured her signeture to this 

paper which later proved to Be an agreement on her part to take 
shares of stock im the Borth Chiesgo Hospital in exchange for her 
steck in the biversey Parkway Hospital. ‘the defendants disputed 
thin evidenee but we again feel thet the triel court was warranted 
im ite conclusion in phaimtiffe' favor. The weakness of defendants’. 
contention is munifested by their admission that, notwithstanding 
theirs claim that plaintiff Lizsie Gartner signed a subeoription 





ates witt veda adieenryss vedeuvt deoterhs wtuabasbed - yy 
dents ques wht we badoethoug anew wots Ga slommueak Gad * 
oe bas qumoliqhzjadve gobtesinegxetsy @sew emaleqe-wmedag | ald 
qeotwiesite ‘gil bled m2 Sedunceaw aan Labed we “deat? ‘bonetoaoe” vad 
: pad S) mas eothesoe os — a 
dommes atthtabatly godt aakinssaes Mauwe? ‘ataabaste@. 0! 
. @yevdds Adel ef? mi stveia odad of bootga yuiti 
o,,,,— 
— ——we —ayr 
et Shuwh Tish oh OT sokdnmesny af yhonstnade med bash drobeng 
teen qLamtitte binew giost ast te beatagee aved yalwed bee comm ah 





| gakehsoet Yo Yhmutungqe a? bore te oxow ytd tadd dogee ad ah 
& at eovate Yo tedaun omen ois cont ¢) guiddog to doee aha dood 


YReweel off tok? dened ene ade Jer? haddheawd ae ode add som - 


at inew qetnd onunt sein Domehwnds wood ball deohecg Latiqaeh yaotast 
hon BMoered yd ktay qeaom of Ro wawdex edt bedaemeb baw youmld 


om Sip ost todd Sodate gined afd mb exons swmdd ykhted yyotete 


go bedeegerq ef doidy voqeg a beagte ade Sivew bee weetad soot eee 


| Obs OF pau ame ual henwoDR YLowMtsegottes ef Soda dence 


ma o8 deg rod mo demaweTRe me of Of SaveRy mmser delty Wola 
+ Beal ves eguatone at Letiqae® enone dere® alt nk * ——— 





— ———— adanbreted at 6 ekstiqaall yowixet ener obits * eo ae 





hodmariee vow swiOe kakst at? tect Los) mkage ww Jd somoates 7) 

— sets 
Bithaaduitiwion pints gedcatude cies YS onder’ 

fakighwadm « hoagie —— — E—— 








— 
#2 = 
, 4 = 

et Ma 

— — 
— Pies, ae Ps 


“10< 


order for steck in the North Chicaro Hospital August 21, 1950, 
they never even offered to deliver thie stock te plaintiffs 
until the close of the trial of the instont ease, almost two 
years later. The gertificates of stock in the North shore 
Hospital tendered to plaintiff at the trial were dated September 
13, 1930, and were signed by defendent Yagoner, an seoretary, 
and one Hoyt, who was one of the original incorporaters ef the 
Diversey Parkway Hospital, as presidente 

We muct conclude that Liazsie Gertner told the truth 
and thet she was imposed upon in this transaction by Clarey. 
It may be that Clarey also imposed upon defendants, but the fact 
remains thet by their acts and conduct they put it within Clarey's 
power and made it possible for him te secure the money of plaintiffs 
by the sale of shares of stock that were entirely speculative and 
that were unquestionably Class “b° securities under the Blue sky 
Law, the future inceme from which was prospective. This stock was 
geld without complying with the provisions of the Securities et 
and upon the election of the purchaser the sale »as vold and 
defendants are clearly liable for the money paid for this stocks 

Defendants contend that e¢ leng as they did not directly 
sell this stock, and that because Clarey who did sell the stock 
was not their individual agent but the agent of the Diversey Parkway 
Hospital, they cannot be held liable under the Blue Sky Law, These 
defendants were respectively president and seeretary and else diree- 
ters ef this corporations they were among the seven original incore 
porators and they knew that the charter issued to this corporation 
authorized the issue of $1,500,006 eapital stocks they knew that 
they each had aubseribed and paid for but sixteen shares of common 
stock at $5 a share and that the total amount of the assets of the 
Diversey Parkway Hospital May 2, 1950, the date of its incorporetion 
was $2,000, which was cnagh paid fer the stock subseribed by the 


—— Oe a 


| @ERLSubadg of foods gids <oyLiod of bevatto mayo. coven vod 
eu? seomls gpan0 tein domk nis bad tota⸗ astt to — wth. * Sal 
— sito ost) mk Xoods 28 Weiner tEsz—e aa toda wm 
W— — — bedab euew Labud ai? so Vadsmd ade J he rednv⸗ — 
eqiatenoes ee qxomope® susdeeted Wt Donate oxy hme «0ERL y6L 
fais Ye anotaxeqoont Lontptxo od? Yo ome enw oe 9 2yeh 7*— 
— ptesbkaowg pe aked2gnall yon ans! 
yor ou neve iemiiat ekesid godt ohatomes 1M 9% sie Slat, 
| SertedD ys moliooenatd add st moqy Aenggmt aay eda, — * 
teat geld ded ,aduodwte megu poasgat pale yout? | 
atgexsi? atdéiw df seq yots gowione ban gdoe sheds ye Sas 
atiieatalg Ye yom edt enioee 09 sibs wok atatʒaea a ** 
bee ovtscivacge yioxldme oxew dante sooty te pom 
Ye owhE orld rohew eokdiaweon "A" ceate vide 
aow doege alAT sevhdecqsesg, cay dole mort SORE, SPERM 
#a/, goktiwoed of Le anodatvosg ad? Atty gay 

















* 



















Sie NE 


wands othe bitte eet VVVVV— 


— * anid — — —— — alll 





otoonh anigize neves salt, mee. an see anes on 
Melsaneyxes hdd ad domved sodsodo sHd asd romd yas ban. atoderos 
Gents woot yortt ghoote Lodiqae 000,00%—£% to swank ond bent tedéun 











omoe 9 otadia mvedabe tad xo btoy ban bedbswedivg bast lone vote 


PD BT es 


m Yo ntasnn ault Yo snuens Lote? oid dou One cao — 89 tm aoate 


sage Bae 
moisexmgrporh wth Ye edah ods aodee af wa iséiqool > seve 
Soa BA CNS aoa 
edd YW oodh roe dis sivode silt x02 bing dane caw dotite 4 





om * * set 


oooren oe 
apy atady shee i 
Tid 


“lle 


incorperatorsg and they knew thet there were no earnings or income 
and that there could mot possibly be any earnings for « considcrable 
time, if evers They ae officers and directors of the corporation 
are conclusively presumed to have been familiar with the exuployment 
of Glarey as the agent authorized te sell thie stock, which was 
purely speculative. If, under such circumstances the officers of 
a corporation can evade responaibility for the sale of steck of a 
corporation whese principal asset lies in the emoothnese of ite 
selling agent and the gullibility of the purchaser, especially 
when they have full knowledge that the etock has no carming eapae 
eity and that the corporstion is net even a going concern, on the 
theory that the octual sales were not mace by them but by an agent 
authorised by the efficera and direetors ef the corporation to set 
for it, then the Blue Sky lew is of no avail as a protection te 
the public. 

The motions of plaintiffs heretofore mace te strike 
the ebatract and dismies the appeal of defendiemte, which were 
reserved, are deniede 

For the reaeons stated we are of the opinion that 
the Hunicipal court was justified in its finding and its 


gwigmont is affirmed. 
AVOTHMS Ds 


Seamlan, Pe Jog and Gridley, Jo» concurs 





sapont 46 waketes on sraw exert Yadd went yodt baw ff 
eldetohtanes « ‘0 ‘wipinschid “eid ia Ghabdiing ‘ods thin ‘Wikia Whe “Od 
seltoxogios sf 24 axedestis tee arserTio ac Yad store tf gon 
Sonmyolque ald Mtke totLiunt tedd ovead af bemwuew yLeviawlcned exe 

| enw Heide «tvots ak? Lfon Of hontvariine tmoxs wit as yotetd to 
| Ye eriotite oft seonstaeacts dome abu 92  sovidafuoeds Wotaq 
@ % Moots to ofes add et ywWilidianeceot shave map noltexeqtes & 

ath 20 anoimtiooms odd wf aott gous taqhoatue esesy nok #5 r0qz00 
vitakeogas ston ara unt esta * — afd Sete ren v⸗ paki tve 

a patkersne on otf foose oat fasts epdetvomt iiwt ovad yet wwoste 
eds —* gatos x neve You at wobt exoqnbe out? tats ban ato 
sop na wi sud mods x = Sut tom wien welae Laude. dtd tent rood ’ 
Bg 


dos es mets rxoqzeo ei? Yo stesoorth bew axvot tte od ‘WE benteadiun 
o⸗ mektpatong a 28 ibava on te ak wal we uth ste medi «tt = 


Let F agri a 








oxtxae aa oben oꝛor⸗ roei evbinbady * ei aen * 
orae doldw .edmsbnet0d * tesage ods waded ome 





, Boats sotaige odd 0 ots ow — anor ↄa sity a 


adi ba —— at a t bortivawt oaw wes aerate | 





* * F he = ear ae Ww 
(eA PA a 
ez Me) Dike ind Biot o@ foomed yaad — 


——— 2 
Lie Boer oe ex tty 1 2u até wea? a 
* 





; ite seats Sey 


aa > Filet * say fy algo, a Bia Sa. 
"Cen y Be Meee wed tee 2 ee ey 


chi am = & Wes 
: rs ‘ 
* git * 
a Sm Roe ing : 
: J 
J i VSS , af Yee hae 44 * xonke % 
mi? by 








WEST SIDS TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, ) 
as trustee, 
Appellant, APPRAL FROM MUNICIPAL 


Ve COUNT OF CHIC)G0e 
DAVID BAGHSTON, 


Appellee. 270 1.A.6 30 ; 


— @ 


MRe JUSTICR SULLIVAN DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT. 


The West Side Trust & Savings Bank commenced an aetion 
ef forcible detainer against defendant alleging thet 16 was 


entitied te the possession of the apartment in question and that 

defendant unlawfully withheld posaseesion of the premises from 

plaintiff. The court entered judgment in faver of defendant 

amd assessed the coats against plaintiff. This appeal followed. 
The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts in 

which it wae agreed: 


"That plaintiff was the trustee in a certain trust 
deed conveyance which —*5* the premises involved in these 
oceedings together with all of the rento, ieoucs and profits 
f to secure the ent of a sum of money aggregating . 
47,0003 that a defaul eccurred in the payment of prineipal 
due under said trust deed amounting to $1,196+60 on November 16, 
19515 that default also had oecurred in the t of principal 
ef $2,000 and interest of 91,260 both due May 16, 1932 and that 
reeson of such defaulte and by reason of the right given 
tiff im the trust deed the plaintiff served notice on vay 
29, 1952, upon all persons —— of the premises thereby 
conveyed of its election to enter inte the possession of the 
ees securing such money and attempted to exercise the rights 
the truat deed containeds thet one of the fints in ssid premises 
was occupied by the defendant, “ho failed and refused to pay the 
July rent to the plaintiff in accordance with the demand mace 
upon him by the plaintiff, and thereupon the complaint im forcible 
detainer wee filed inst himj and thet the lease of the defendant 
was meade subsequent the date of the trust deede* 


The facts in this case are substantially the same ase in 


West Side Trust _& Savings Sank ve Gerstein, General Nor 564550 
(opinion filed by first division of this court April 10, 1953, 





FeV Rew whe 


en re re ee ea aOmIvAa & TeOAE ate Tey 


: “ gestorwin Pe’ Tamu ce aa deal Lois. ay oar 
seating oy eas aN HR gi Re Reales Te ae 
— Sn 0 —— * 





— 


oso aL. 


as oat * vorxao at J— vias 4 





— fs beoasnnse “amas eben 4 tower * * ti tle. 
ese oe. hil pataetia Seunlene tn sasiogea neh — a 2% 


see Se & 

















ox —— esis * —“ — 


—— 


————— Kate 
showellot Lavage aT 9 kidéwindg, bardege atnom wed eer 


at agoak te wotiaiugtéa 5 soe aint now paae oft .. we 


otter brs eared 55 


— — ——— ‘aaa 20 a 3 * 
— To dummy at 
J * — — deeb 

ak botes0ee 


eédinis wid cx inxves» aeaedes bao yous dows — 
avutmem Aten «i agal} eff? te ome sactt —— aa ro ast ol 
- git You of Sommtox tne bekket ade ,dmndestes one Po nae 
4 a pene edd fits sonchreoes md 53 el goo ⁊ 
ehdiawe algquan one? 
éenbestod ond te eaaok ont tae bon tae aid Seal age seit aow —— 
*, boob Inarsd oat Te ori? oF tmeapeedm © obam aaw 


badbcolrundie: Maycnminups: waiviadcaier nmbyenibousereses 6 
eSOMee sat Lorene? 


way 


e880 .OL Lays dmwoo abet to —— duet w bon ⸗ ofmige) : 


eds 


mot yet published.) The judgment rendered below in that cnse 
was the same as in thig and the same questions were there 
presented for reviewe 

Ve agree with the reasons set forth in that opinion 
and the conclusions reached; therefore the judgment of the 
Municipal court in the instant case is reversed and the cause 
remanded with directions to the trial court to enter a judgment 
in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. 

REVERSED AMY RUMANLSD VITH DIRECTIONS. 


S@amlane Pe Jeg and Gridley, J+, eonaurs 














“sfsbuoted Pemtage | oie 4 
 AMOITOMNKG NOTW CRIMAUNE OMA ee ea 








* LO s om: ve uae 





























rd MI vy 
* 
a a 
3 ae 
¥ 
; 
he ee 
¥ wes in] 
* 
va 
—* fe ik ; 
3 + ~ ify 7% ‘ * 
eves * J - 
cee a “fit Jte ‘ — — aus 
=k, ahs p 7 b A 
Te ra t * 
* yee o* 4 
’ de e an a 
te , é 4 ear 
FREY yng ; See By 
¥ * * Bia 
ie Hepes * ieee if aan 








ity 
4 





aap hy igs 6 rad 








tee Beeld a weed bembane Soomyhert oat 
on eted? exer smutioonp omen ad? dan aide at so omen oe ee 








asco ie ab me a —* A 








ss 









——— 








8 es | 
— 


VEE ! — ee ; bene he 
Veda wioks wee * — 


* — so * 


—J 


wig ——* ob 



















sigh 
ee 








36574 





BARTHA %, JOHUSTOR, 


arelC BAN Oye i 


Appellee, . 
PROK SUPER LOK) COURT 
ve, ‘ 
FPF CoGh Gh UBTY, 
CITY OF CHICAGO, a Muriecieal 
Corporation, 


want. } omy TA 630! 


WR. JUSTICK GBULLIVAR DELIVERED £4h OPIRION OF THR count. 


Thie is an appeal of the defendant, Gity of Gnieage, from 
& judgment entered’ in the Sunerior court of Cook county on the 
jury's verdiet for 91200 an acesunt of pereonal injuries alleged 
te have deen wagtained by Bertha 4. Johnston, plaintiff, ae a remult 
ef a fall when she steoped inte a hele in the pavexert of the atreet 
ee che alighted from s street car en Irving Park boulevard, Chicage, 
The Chicago furface Linnea wns also made 2 purty defendant bet on 
motien of the plaintiff the case wae dismiesed as to it. 

The plaintirf’s declaration conreiated of ene count whieh 
cherges in eubstance that before ond on April 24, 1931, the defend- 
ont, City «f Chicagc, was in pessernion and control of Irving Park 
bevlevard end Reade etreet in caida city; thet it negligently per- 
mitted these strecte ta be und recaim in bead and uneafe condition 
and alievwed ta exiat a hole at or maar the east cross walk of the 
intersection af the aforementioned streets immediately nerth of the 
West beund oar tracks on Teving Park touleward; thet the Chicage 
Surface Lines was operating a vetrest scar om wxioh the plaintiff bee 
euae a passenger ans it was the 4uty ef the defendants to afferd the 
plaintiff an opportunity of alighting safely from the cer; that the 
Shicsags Surface Lines megligentiy brought thie car to a step oppoesit« 
this hols er depression in the pavement of the street and by reason 
theresf the pleintiff, whils elighting or about te alight from the 
atreet car with due care and caution, stepped inte or upon the hole 








1 aa 

ate aie 3 

% h~ an _ 

— a * 

—8 oe : 

8 

sey Soe ; Sag os By J * — —— A ARRAS 
PHOS iG Taeye ean J re ape pe eR Oe ae eee oi. Faas g 
iid dae SSS < 3 a : * 

ia o ao Ww Ms 

| hagto ast a” Seager —* bi] . 


: 
he 










v X © y AAT, i) ¥s S.. qo ae Mid erRT patel? tte 4 
‘aboard eee wh dong en a 
" stnyys ‘mr ito ——— od caning uve ie MVTTEVT ein 
ort ,ogsoksid Yo ydtd \Ramseieror writ te Tab qin Wa WE aie yates 
esa ae. etree dood Yo etmew tolewert att HF bowed: tremabul — | 
howe bie seisetat fenvexeq te ¢auooee ae COTIG det totbrey reat, 
J 


au 2 ee |, Mebiatele sMoseudet .z —ED et —e need oved of 
—XR eis te dusueveg oat ah godt es whad- heceeds ae tute LORY a 

| eaten biaveived duel golval ae tay deeTee & mot? ‘bendy hha ola Ge | 

ne dud taskae tab ytteq #9 eee cele eaw eons ope tust —— is 

waa of as hersleasib aew eens ad? Wrstaba dy ote to mY — 

dette faves one lo hetaleaos aghiotateoh at Ytigatate ot a a , 

| ~bas'teb odd SEG be chee to bois — iat comsatoe * uae —— 






















ateq ¢Linogdfgen $f todd yytto Sten ad anita then * seo — 
 getetheos elawne has bad at akan hoes ad af sitoesta wait hag 
| edt ‘lo diaw wacxo dane of toa to Oa Bhod 2 dadne at aL ia ® 
sat te Axon ‘Cle tatnecnt ainesta beaottneannnte ‘este to ae revorae loll 
“ ‘epaoidd ont said :iucwe fued Aue’ gubyeT m9 asloand tee haved teow 
“sed Tisainte 94d Sole no x09 torte # gatsurene aa posta 
one Mrotia of asauhan'toh ode Yo veoh watt waw Eh bite wgaesneg a Be 
| — tame tap odd sow ‘eeren — — te * alt 


AC Same iad 
* — 


‘A 


“) 





or depression in the pavement and was thrown to the ground and in- 
jured; and that proper etatutery notice was served on the city 
attorney ond city clerk of the City of Chicage. 

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in over- 
ruling the defendent's motion fer a directed verdict at the elese 
of ali the avidenee and urges in suppert of this contention that 
the plaintiff wae clearly guilty of contributery negligence or that 
she failed to prove that she was not guilty of contributery negli- 
gence. 

The defendant offered no evidense on the trial ef thie 
ease, and we deo not eropose te diseues the evidence introduced by 
the plaintiff except to say that not omiy was it net disputed, con- 
tradicted or impeached, but that it showed elearly that the plain- 
tiff was not guilty ef contributery negligence, ven had there 
been some conflict in the evidenee on the issue of contributery 
negiigence, the law is well settled that contributory negligence in 
always a question ef fsct for the Jury exeent when its existence 
is so clear that no resecnsblie minds eould come to 4 contrary cone 
Glusion. This dédetrine has been enunciated by the ceurte of this 
and other states and is clearly set ferth in Lundquist vy. Chicago 
Bys. Go,, 308 Til. 106, 112: 

“It is only where all reasonable minds agree that a certain 
state of facts is established that the question ean be raised as te 
whether er not those facts constitute negligence as a matter ef law. 
If reasonable minds 4iffer on what the facts are, the question of 
negligence is a question of fact for the jury under the instruction 
ef the court as to the lay.” 

The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in 
giving the following inetruetion at the request of the plaintirf: 

“fhe court instruets the jury that it is the duty of the 
eity te use reasonable diligence to keep the street in question in 
& reasonably safe condition, if the jury believe frem the evidence 
that the defendant failed to perform such duty, that by reason of 
its negligence in that regard the said street was permitted te re- 
main out ef repair ond in « dangerous condition, by reason whereof 
the plaintiff reeeived the injury complained of then the defendant 


ie liable if the plaintiff at the time was in the exercise of 
ordinary care for her own safety.” 


i te sede ae goKnys Lyom pg hs ene? aeodd jen te, oferta 
le oa 8 @ 4 — —— 


wth him bawety es of aretds sew hie sae weg eat al aglaxerash 18 


ie Se ae oe 
, gee ee 


yee aid ao hevies naw coltom Ytodatads teqeng oeikd ee phew, 
wgbe ef “te ytkD ods to wpe ¢tio da⸗ yeaxedae 

~serve ai Sexvue Ssuyop Label ent sade chit days tae hae wh ont or 
wots ant to teltupy Sedoesth # tet aebion at tauaban toe rn yebiws 
 gentt nobiopines eted to tenque al eagte bas eomebive eat ifs te 
fed? te aenegiigem yresuditguos Yo gtikeg yiteole awe Vilsalaty est 


eb fgom yretudias nes Yo Wiles tea sow sth torld eveng of bode? ofa 


’ 908g bY 

© kets te laine on? x0 sae bive oe beste aa. ar ias oat a 
i 
“¢ boouhors ad sone bive sid eawoald os oaoqong toa of ow ban om — 





aos boda 8 tea 2 aaw yino tom tons we ot sqpexs Nubsaiete on 


natal ene Jada vies te Dewalt X tals aud shedonegat a6 besothuns é 


| Seat hed wove sane gl Kyo ctesuditaes te @hing ton aay ue 
ae. Rive 


Voraatasuo⸗ te eusad od? no wonohive and ak toh cave pave a A 
as somgiigen \totuddatags dass be iston Liew a was ons ssomatignn oa 
soustetus ati andw fesome yart odd? tot toa’ te molteoup * ayeria * 

ono eee? soe # a7 oma &ivoe abalan —D —— an fact ‘x08 So — 
shat ‘te —R sig X hetatomnie seed ead oattzabs ober MS. au ct 
annsh.5-ASAuARNEL at Meet Soa yitasle at baw aviede —J—— a 

: — J et 208 x 


aiagtes @ fact gorge shaim eldemoewet Lia etedy at — ge er a i 
niauroe sas ownge abate oCdonouack Kia eunst cing er ee 















o tebtesuy oA? ota atont oot . — ee > 
noitousteal eat wehaw qrwl eas x8? fast ne —— £ aie Be * ae 


“at Seven trimee ‘tnled ely teas sbentnen tad — a 
—— — ——— 


“gas ta Youb wet el 3h Jane wawkh exe ah # 
* molseoup a testde ods qaed of somegh ith ry? fas 
totehive ody wert eveliod wrk wae BE ota 

Yo nosaet tadt ,ydub dome ato'tieg of hellat daphne 
oot af tedflawg aew footse bee ocis age Sens al oom 
Yortelw aekaasx yo ,weltibaos at hae lage ; 
feehaetod ead aedt Yo foate Seuwe oes * * wicks oa 

* ee iowxe eat a) aaw amis S94 ja Wasate Le oe 













whe 


it ie readily apparent that in copying these inatruetions 
the conjunction “and" was omitted in the third line before the word 
“ir" ond in the fourth line before the word "that", and that these 
omiesions were mere typographical errera, We rail te see how this 
instruction, especivily when read ae 4 part of the sericea of all the 
instructions given, could mislead the jury, That the defendant 
was fully protected by proper instructions given on ite behalf 
admits of no argument, At the defendant's request the court sub- 
mitted to the jury the fellowing inatructian: 

*If you believe from the evidence that at the time and 
place in question the plaintiff wae negligent and that such negli- 
gence on her part proximately contbibuted te cause the alleged se- 
cident, then you are instructed that she cannot recever in this 
case, irrespective of whether you believe that the defendant was or 
wae not negligent." | 

If the instruction of the plaintiff, eriticized by the de- 
fendant because of the inudvertent omigsion of the word “and” 
teliece, was ambigueus or created any miseeneeption in the minds of 
the jurors, the above inetruction given at the request of the ge- 
fendant and other defendant imatructions afforded thea a true ex- 
position of the law suniicable te thie case, The princiole that 
mere technical error will net warrant a revereal walews it ie prejue 
dioiel te the cowpleinent is well expressed in Kegkle vy, Urevwe, 
125 I21. 84, 63, wherein the court said: 

"Courtea of review reverse only for such errors aes may have 
been prejudicial to the cvmplaining party, ond certainly ne error 
or number of errors can, with any propriety, be esid te prejudice 
& party, when it is clear, as it is here, that the judgment upen 
the coneeded facts is the enly one that could properly be rendered, 
and that another trial would therefore -ecensarily result in the 
same way.“ 

Discussing the same sfoposition the court said in Vest 
Ghicage St. Ay. Ce, v, Maday, 186 t1l, S64, So: 

"When the court ean see from the record that an error com- 
mitted by the trial court in the progress cf the case wae a hare- 
less one, or that ite injurious effect or Rarwful character was 
edviated, s¢ an not te affect injuriously, in the finel judgment, 


the righte of the party agsinst whem the errer was committed, it 
should not be aliewed te work a revereal. it is wore impertant in 


entexg #2 vs nan hoy dneaaves & deer eae * “ —* 


ie at i ts 
 ,besebnet ed yftoqutq binee fans eae J 33* as — 


— 
te 
— 


‘ gngitectieal evens galyqos af tad? sepcbyad “iibaos wey | 
svew silt oxgted ont ula ody al bedtime naw in” aoitodutmoy wel. 
wensdt sort ban ," aad? baew ond exo tdd oud Wewvey Sat ae bee 
atid wed eou of Liek oP exe<ts tas tqetyeax? ete Srew voier hap 
at? fie te ev tued odd ‘te Paag wo bows ie Ulla toeged ,aoltoltens 
foshas'ted iis dat .yunt Sad Seodade biive \aavig ‘enotto agent 
‘tioved eth ae wivig wndltoutianl wqery yt bodes sony ‘ehtus eee 
‘sdya duued od? Poosped a Sannas'ted ‘edd 8A. diemegan on *e wg 
tuehtewtsead gatwoiie’ asid cunt, ede of odie 
pita silts nde $4 tants ‘Sodenive ‘dnd soc’ oven’ c·. 


elinem deus geds ban fasgt Ajaiale edt mekieaus at conte 

8 Tae ger gthes ede —2 oF bo — ares od Foe tee 9 RO Sone 
* * eee 

rcs une rg Pie in ye a egahied * — Ss 83 
















“oh ad ee — <Milsaintg. os? * — co gts 
“hae” Bie edz 30 Aataatne daetwevbant ent te eeuaned yeas ‘ 

| Re shake ext a2 soitqoeaconda yan hedanay te ekongttis saw aoked 
ed Re deoupex oad tn sovig molipwcteml evets mitt * : * 


“Ke ound. @ wedt hodteTin aaeitesttent Faebun tah tedso hae oe 














" —3 — 
——— al boorexqes itew ok #asnte Senos edd dt ‘ tod — 
_ tedaa stHoe edt ahorede 68 * tit ak | 
‘avad Yeu ae erotee dove xo? yea ores woteot te Pst 8 dt i * 
a Ysielseo bese ie Lae pee’ e? felgibstet¢ asad 


 Betbuteta of Biaa od , tontas 
| pind g ha Ge end & — © — ane 









. O82 Bh theaee Wiranneees atelete a? bisow Saket ‘wed? one aad bas 


‘hae ai Blow Sanod octy Herdiacqes’ ‘eeen ood — eben 
10Rt WOR .2k2 884 jyakedl “— 


-d06 tork8 ae tacts bieoet ond aowt ope tee rere “¢ 
AG nee SONS ON Te eees i oe ee stat 
. . wee Biowiake Littetad ap # 
sirompdul Soakt ody ak ———— 
— ——— 
ad Peudtoqad erom al i - —— bevetis od ton Binede 
at ba AM RR a 







ole 


the administration of Juetice that litigation sheuld od in the ate 
tainzent of substantial Justice, than that a reeord of the proceed- 
inge should be built wp which is witheut flaw or blemish,“ 

Vurthner contentions have been advanced by the defendant, 
but we find them to be entirely without merit. A careful analysis 
of this evidence warrants the conclusion that the verdict and judge 
ment were amply supported by the evidence, both aa te the liability 
of the defendant and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and dam. 
age. it is our epinion that this record ia singularly free from 
errer ani that substantial justice has been dene in thia case, 

Plaintiff aeke that the atatutory penalty be imposed on the 
ground that the appeal herein ia prosecuted solely for purpoees of 
delay. While it io true thet seme delay ensued by reason of thie 
arpeal, we do not regeri this delay as vexatious within the meaning 
ef the statute, and consequently are not disposed te allew statutory 
damages. 

Yor the reasons indicated herein the judgment of the Superior 
eourt is affirmed, 

AVFI REED, 


Seanian, *. J., «md Gridley, J., concur, 





* 
F — aa (ae 


ste Gt uh hue biuee, tebhenbehd. 2s ger — ——— 
— BD BF. paid toh eet as Pyne ed te. 
* de iwots te, wae ‘duedtiw ah t ato hate ” hbud ad Aiwode 


“tambon ous A bovaavha aged eves anokinozaes | outa 

















il) ee SS Rae —— RG Ane 

: mt f aleginna —2 a 21 bem aout bw elena a ot Ad aon bat ows 
| subi, baa fe Linco oss sat ae tau fone ond etneria a wonabive ant 3 1 
Ae | WAR RG — ae Dea eet 


 ehitdals: aie of as dios ‘ssoanblve ott we bodrenuue ‘Vigan oe" tae 


Ou 
i> te — — J ‘ — 


anh baw warntat 9 a Tibente te ott, x0 saps net ne tand an tat * 


ast sox? pete cuyats ei arooer ebae bons nolatge wo al a 











——6 be * 


sean wide ak aaah aved oct wotzeu Matenagodun kgs Speman 
wad: no oe ea⸗n oo yone, wreeetare oat tas —— — 


ath 9 


ae CREME wi — aa ae. a 3 Ih te PM —7 a ae + ste “ 


ae) ah ee 


: 
J 








eng 
\ 


RG 
at * 





; A f 


— 


HARRY J. FIRGMAN, ) 
Appellees . 
APPRAL WROM SUPERIOR me, 
" | COOK COUNTY. 
OLIVAR Fe sMIT A 
Appellant. 970 1.A. 631 


Be JUSTICN GULLIVAN DELIVERKS THE OPINION OF THR COURT. 


Upon the petition of appellee (hereinafter referred 
to as plaintiff) the superior court entered the following order, 
July 1, 19311 


"Ordered, adjudged and deereed that the defendant 
forthwith turn ever, deliver and sasign te anid receiver (the 
Union Bank of Chicago) all his right, title and interest in 
and te 301 shares of ctoek in the Citizens frust and davings 
Bank ond all of hia right, title and interest in and te the 
¢hove in setion new pending in the circuit court of Cock 
eounty, entitled Oliver Fs “mith voe Yilliam Hughes.” 


This appeal followed the entry of the order. 

Alleging in his assignment of errors that certain 
constitutional queations were involved the appellant (hereinafter 
referred te an the defendent) prosecuted hig aypesl direst to the 
Supreme Court. ‘The Supreme Court in Fireman v. Smith, 347 Ul. 
108, 109, in transferring the sppesl to this court, said: 


. “While appe\leant im his essigmment of errers hee 
alleged that csertain constitutional questions are invelved in 
this case, a atudy of the abstract and —n brief 
Giscloses the fxet that the untters of which he complaina do 
not involve a construction of the conatitution but only raise 
questions of procedure and the correctness of the ceerce.e Me 
question ia raised by the appeal which justifies this court 
to directly review the deeree of the trial court. it is the 
— of —* court toe hy ag eee talk & — aang . 

uriadietion to determine ia wan * (AWE22 ve — 
S10.) The couse will thercfore be —— — the 
Appellate Court fer the Piret District." 


By his bill ef complaint filed in the Superior ceurt 
October 1, 1928, against defendant, Oliver Fe “sith, plaintiff, 
Harry Je Fireman, sought te eubject certain property alleged to 


— 





Pas es am ase OR Tsk 
‘ ¥FRIOS BOOS. 


tao ae 19 —— oat tava sarassts tem, ama 


i Fe ct 


‘ihe 
— 
— 





Re ge ay —— — 





— J— be matttiog wie 0 
Endae MEWSLLOY oMt, Serstem tue cOdueqes auld. (234: tat 





sag ange 

| da) “zoeten os biae o@ 
seorede! bas 3 
— el pe ahd — ai — 
4002 to ——————— ——— hy ‘i 
“ gectgul matSilW ony Atta et xovi.te belsline Wy 


etebto eff ta yrtew ete, pewolic? — 
tiinéven Jad? etert Yo saomngtoan eld mt gubgetsn . — hag 
4estantouet) Gusileqda afd bevlovad stow smoiéeans ——— 
edt od soouth Lavqqa ait bedwmoaong (daobaoted add aa OF borxte 
oLkl VOC gAtio® ov tameghe amb) Ce oe “edma0 oseaaee 
thtas «iwoo elds of Lseqqa oft gubryetentess af otk: «or 


eat everso te dnomegtven eld at taads eliay 
ak bovileval aia aneliooanp — —————————— tale — 


ela «ted hoe foxtgade ed te ybude # e9ane | 
ob etiialgnoe of doide to —— oid ted? — Yooh ane as as. 
wakax ylew gud molindizunos aif to moldowtéenes a orhove: 
“pit tt"cstva ates tte eel 
* 4 
ods ek 32 sf xwos —* to o ——— 
PE ged oe 5 org 03 oul ineo oe Tuues als 
‘ ett AaVhLGY ov SARE) exe? geen eff (46 
al wesuatdolt #uaht gala <r —28 sind 
dxwoe tobregud sitd mt —R tnt alauos Xe ie nie eo 
sYiitelakg  hsies! +t septso snabew tod fentage 08 ef ytore 


eo begets —E whattas doo} 









ee ie en ee ee ee en 

















* * 
— — 
IS Le a —— 


e2e 


belong; to defendent to the lien of a judguent theretofere entered 
againat defendant. A final deeree wan entered in this cause June 
27, 1950, finding "defendant's interest in seid 301 shares (of 
ateek of the Citiseng Trust and Savings Bank) is subject to the lien 
of complainant's judgment” and “thet whatever interest defendant hag 
im seid suit (againat William Hughes) is subjecs to the lien of 
complainant's judgment." 

This division of the Appellate court in its opinion filed 
March 24, 1931, Gene Hoe 34579, on an appeal from the final deeres 
ef the Superior court, affirmed the final deceree, Defendant petitioned 
the Supreme court for gertiorari, which petition ws denied. 

Subsequent to the affirmmmee of the final decree by the 
Appellate court and denial of the certiorari by the “upreme court, 
plaintiff petitioned the court, July 1, 1951, to enter a rule upon 
defendant to forthwith deliver and assign to the receiver a1] his 
right, title and interest im the shares of stock and chose in cetion 
speeified in the fimal deeree. In accordance with the preyer of the 
petition the order of July 1, 1931, was entered directing defendant 
to forthwith turn over, deliver and assign te the receiver all his 
right, title and interest in the property which the final deeree had 
found to be subject to the lien of plaintiff's judgment. efendant 
contends that the order appealed from is contrary to las; veid for 
want of jurisdictions deprives defendent of his property without cue 
proeess of law contrary to section 2, article 11 of the ilignois 
Constitutions deprives defendant of his remedy in the lawa for injuries 
he has received in his preperty amd deprives him of right amd justice 
in violation of section 19, article 11 of the TLlineie Constitutions 
and denies defendant the equal protection of the laws in vieclation of 
amendment 14 of the United “tates Constitution. 

Plaintiff contends that no assignments of errer are now 


honoistteq stabnoted soexooh Laak? ett bemeh tia ofxwon seh 


4 


,,,,,,,,—0— — 
ot eeune etdd wh bowedne aow gored dott A stieteoted denkege 
Ye) woreda £0¢ Blo wh dooretad a inchavtoh” guboatt »PEOt 92 
wert etd of tootdwa ut (aueX apatye’ bus soutT ameetthO of? te deeds 
eer tobmokeds deevedmt xovedudw galt” dee “Sromgiet ot dma atgues Yo 
do xit ait of falas of (nowtgal metite’ tambitga) dkoa bhava ot 
* dreamy hak, sia 
bok? mpknige nét at ster Steftoqgs adv to notetvid ela? 3 

sewweb Lamk® edd mort iasqge to me geTUNt «oH acd _Leer —* dowel 
we omit de 
sbelash naw molsiivg dodstw abzazoltzee et Sawe9, —— 
——— 
struts eomnge? ens YT Rewrektes9 ey to tatctes hae, 00, * atte * 
oq Sher a witty OF t gk xO atu odd — witdmteds 
ait {1a tevivon eft of mgkens tae wevitod détutevey od Snabaehed — 
mottos ab enote ban toote te aptatts etd at daqrednt * ents, stitgts : 
a? Yo wwyong oe Mdiw gemahrqooe al sewnoeh Lomht onld ah bel tiesqa — 
Itadaoteh ypakéoorth borsgan sow .LOGL al qheb lo cebte ot mokdideg — 
aid Ske xeviooas aff OF myaas dae tovitoh qteve umd Aotedixe? es 
bert aazoed Lents oof? dotstw yrroqoug ont at duoaedat bee este gdsighe 
tmatmoret »tuemgha a’ trisataig to Mett ati ot tookdua of ot Samet : 

tet tiey qeol Af, Sesstany, ak 3 — — 
ou swtihatn ‘iceony — n— Se ale 
mbes nde “0 £5 ehaktns 9 WAFind he Bie saan wok t0 saseem 
pokzubat ot eat sate ist qoqmoe wat Ro setobomtod avinges Mao tu nae? 
pokiom, Meus ddptx io mtd nevingeb bes ysieqenq ald at, bovies re — a ; 
motu et iommo wioMeLEX melt Y6 LE okoteee ¥@E mokdven 20 a0 agony at 
te matsaieby at ewal ed? io notdvosorg raue⸗ oat ——— | eobeb be ‘ 
| etotistianed sotate betta oats * 9— saa ne 
- oun 20% vo aduoamst ses om —2 — ebaesa09 at eutos wenn 4 
et 





























ote 


made on this appeal which could not have been made in the appeal 
to this court from the final deeree ani that any errors that 
might have been asvigned in the prier appeal ond which were not 
eo aseigned were waved by defendant and that he is now precluded 
from a review of any phase of his case which he may have neglected 
to present on the former appeal. 

Defendant's anewer to the petition upon which thie order 
is prediented alleges the impossibility of physical delivery of 
his interest in the bank stook, and the Cireuit court suit for an 
accounting against Yilliem Hughess that defendant “Long before 
the entry of the deeree” of June 27, 1930, had aseigned to his 
attorneys of record om this appeal an interest in his claim on 
said benk stock and in his claim for an sccountingy that the bank 
has failed and thet defendant has filed « claim with the receiver 
of the Citizens Trust & Savings Sank fer the value of the stock 
as of the date of an alleged convwrsion thereof by the banke 
We are unable to discern how any or ol1 of these facts could 
change or affect the rights of the parties to this appeal, 

Plaintiff had no notice of any assignments from defendant 
te his attorney until notice ef liens on behalf of the attorneys 
were served on Bums C. Hughes, executrix under the will of William 
Hughes, July 9, 1951, which was after plaintiff's petition upon 
which the order was predicated had been filed. Defendant's 
attorneys were the attorneys of record in all the Litigation between 
the parties ond they permitted the trinl court te enter a decree 
finding that the previous judgment was a lien on the shares of 
bank stock and the interest of defendant in the suit against William 
Hughes pending in the Cireuit court. ‘They aleo permitted the 
Appellate court te affirm the deeree and filed their petition for 
gertiorar’ in the Supreme court withou! ever intimating by evidence, 


Leagan ole wt hast must evad som owes sielutw Laoqqe wht? ne obae 
fom orew deicy ban Lavgge sebey odd mb domytens ood wwad dityha 
betaloony wom at of ticit One deo betetus YE devaw Stew bonyles® Oy 
bedeetgen ovat yan ef datwty e209 abt to eaatig qe ke weyers » mott 
sheogea Teamo® mahe ee seam we 
tebe shd? doidw moqga meteivog ef? of towemm ef énphee tet one 
Re quevisol Lsolewiq by UdhEldiogopst eft seystia — at 
ae 20% tive t2eco sayont® até bem gleota gaad one ak deouedad whet 
aid o¢ aematess fat gOSL 4¥@ enuh te “oozes att Le yet sete 
fe miako ete ab toeteded om kanggn aha we beessr to wyserretts 
Asad okt goat Ionkimvooen ae ce% ataks oka wh hes weetw wm bles” 
seviooes edd dtiw miado a oef2% sal. tastaeted sade bis otek ait 
eote oft 20 onlay od? wh deck ngatvad & duett oneads2d” i i 
| atiead ef? XP Toews aetevevmey bogetie mate W sel aad oe 
bkveo atdat vance Re Fis ꝛe V⸗ wnenahs oF état 'Oae 6 
slasqga olds 98 eektuq edt te edtight amy testis te bynes. 








fuadustod mott sdusangties ym te tétion ox bet Malaiast’ ” ence — 
— —— — 





A ra te camer stowed hawt  botsotbom + ‘ease ‘ J— 











E agtade oft mo mot o caw diemgtet asokvetg * 
KLi¥ Sutkage dive este ak senna ‘0 sovtndit With tn vd is 
ed? betsierrey oaks yoRT .duwoo thawetd ond BE ped bo ily 

wot welshiog xteste nok be cowed aut met Ytn of tuibo ® a 
senae hive WW sithtentiat rows Jundtiw duos emomye sit ut | ‘ 








=e 


intervening petition or otherwise that they claimed some right, 
title and interest in the bank steck and the suit pending in the 
Cireuit court, although they now maintain thet these ascignments 
were made long before the entry of the final cceerec, 

We find no crrers saeigned on this appeal that could 
not with equal propriety have been urged on the prior appeal. 
We find that we are called upon agaim to review the identienl 
findings of the trial court that were reviewed by this division 
of the Appellate court in Fireman yo Smith, Gen. Mo» 34579, with 
reference to the bank stock and the suit for an nccounting. The 
law has long been settled thet a decision by a court of review is 
the law ef the case om a second review. Im People v. Youngs, 309 
Tlle BY, 30, the court saidst 


“Where a cause its brought to thie court and considered, 
its judgment aa to all the points ami questions presented and decided 
will forever conclude the parties, and if the esuse is again brought 
before the court for review such questions cannet be reconsidered 
and they will met be open for discussion. Cases cannot be brought 
te this court and considered in fragments, and the court dees not 
revise, review or change its decisione except in accordanee with the 
rules and practice, which only permit such review upon 2 petition 
for rehearing. the former appeal o petition fer rehenring was 
presented anc denied, anc the law, — the construction of the 
Command ef the constitution that a school district shall be of such 
a character that all children within the district may have the benefit 
ef the school and receive a good common school education, was settled 
ane fimally determined.” 


A strong pronouncement of thia rule of appellate court 


procedure was made im People ve Milituer, S01 Ile 284, 287, in 
which the court used the fellowing language? 


| “The law is well settled that questions of lav which 
have been decided by an appellate court on the appeal of 2 cause 
will not be agaim considered om a second appeals that they are 
binding not on the trial court im the fur . a = 
the cause but alse on the liate court in any sequent 
*There is no mode provided law, except it be upon a rehesrinis 
whereby the final decision of a cace in this court can be reversed 
er set aside at a subsequent term. — mong Py aS im 
Litigation somewhere, and there would none pe g 

ees after a case had received the final determination of the 


po ty 
eour last resort to litigate the seme matter anew and br 
oat * ore a eourt for its decision.’ (ied Lgwegh 


bef 
Ye HeGonmehs 12 112+ 2034)" 


ad? mi gakhneg dive old bee doin Zagd este “a PAPE Re WU BASE 
atuamagiven minds tat matetas wom qos gwedtte rant F J 
<vorwe> Land ead te Weee et sxeted anak sham exay 
— henens abttt: th tomdeen tans ahaa suet 
sisoqys xebty oid me hapw send evead yeedageny 
Lastonohh aft wolves @¢ glage aoqu dallas ota ow dass batt of 
soistvis oss yd however etow tad? Oumar Lobsé ost te apatbak? 
* .97002 s08 sand tia ox sommek oh gman dato <— 
apileewoccs me mo? thwe edd, tan deeds sued att of ton 
















taons mi «wetven beopee 6 ae. B80. eit 5 pi w 
ee att: —2— 

dera augon alga — — —— 
* whom oo te * 










eho tenia mes 
hobineh ewe —— sited —— 


— etalieuge ko efex aldirke Jesmeomeneny: aiterdn A” ne he 
wk sVOS iG 411 100, gape i tee ov akgen’ mb — 
Aa iu grlwelier ede heaw same oat Moke | 


tn avy aonse — sp — —— 
eds 39 nel Santarsodeb sank? okt tatdenes yon bast — 


i af aBS=8 "Se esate ha: 





Where the same parties, the same facte and the same 
issues are presented on an appeal that were presented on a prior 
appeal, the determination of the questions presented on the prior 


appeal wili be held to be ree judicatae In Keokuk Bridge Uo. 
Yo Beophes 185 Thle 276, 279-80, the court held: 


"Im the ease of Keoku tamilton ige Ce 2 Peo 

Ox rele 167 Ille 15, being the same parties whe are parties te & 

egent record, this precise question was presented and determined. 

it asseament of the bridge there involved was fer the year 1894, 
In that case, an in this, the assessor assessed 1567 feet of the 
wridge ae being in the Stete of Illinois, and in that enue, an im 
this, the issue was whether any part of the snid 1567 feet of the 
bridge was in the “tate of Iowan. The coertcntion was adjudicated 
aéversely to this Jiant, and is res <, tate 

ee 102 Ille oH tnkins vy, 













Tha 






















J « 462% 

¥ 128 id. 510," 
That the decision of the Appellate court is regarded 

as the law of the ease on « second review is shown beyond any doubt 


im the case of Hilson ve Carlinville Nat. Bank, 87 Ills ‘ppe 564, 
where the court used this eignifiesnt language: 


“Under the provisions of the Appellate Court act the 
previous epinion filed im thie cause is of binding authority herein, 
and however much disposed we might be to reconsider the reasons of 
the court for ite dceision expressed im that opinion, we have neo 
Fight to do eo. ‘Sueh a practice would produce judicial chaos. 

That opinion and the reasons end the judgment ef the court, expressed 
upon eme facts in the same cuse before us, are binding upen the 
parties herein and upon the court. it would be as much impertinanse 
for us, aw it would have been for the trial court, to disregard our 
former opinion." 


If errors exist which were not agcigned on the first review 
éefendont will not thereafter be permitted te assign theme This 


proposition of law was upheld in the leading case of Ogden ve Larrabets 
70 Tlle 510, 512, where the court anneweed the doctrine as follows: 


"Notwithstanding the fermer decision is conceded to be 
conclusive aa to the law of the case, it is imsieted the alleged 
error may be considered, for the reason it was not assigned for 
errer om the former henring, and the court expressed no opinion 
as to the correctness of this particular item. 

"It may be, it would subserve the onde of justices, in 
this inatanee, if we could consider the suggestion of error, but 
it would eertainly introduce a pernicious practice not heretofore 
adopted in this State. There ought te be an end to all iitigat ion, 
end if the doctrine insisted upon should be adopted, and the parties 
permitted to assign successive errors on the same record, in com- 
Plicated Litigation like this, mo conclusive decision could be 


t@np o83 ona atoet ose odo geetd tog, apne. ote erent bia 
melee 4 §O Modtenewy stew ta? Looqge sm me hoduseetg ote Said 
nobug ad? a6 hedavarse aamlivewp ede to ustdontwsde acts q Lanai 
si gabtatl Sloe’ at. cadooinh nox od ef Ais ou LLbw Longue 
hed tune odd gO gDTS oT OBL, guleoot oe 




















—— Por meriionh be x te sano ee ai* 

¢ 629 tag ‘cK ¥ welt ang See peo oO vit VOL «, 

ebertiorsgeas fae — qaw Mak dea he as — «otooe* Jager 

eP@GL Case ais vel sow beviowat @ 
ett to foot TOL heansana xecsoune my rity ry He 9 BERD ‘tadt 7 
at ga gvuoo Gostd xt hos gubomi Lil to o8ee! eo? of ented aa ——— 
ef? te geet TOES bhas of? to freq yous son eg aow ottemh odd 

beg a ott * 9 wat) atv at hail 






—— 3 — te ai — dus 3 * bbe AEG —R « — 
be baages wt sures odsitoge oad te matetosd ods test ; 
duos Ye ooorged mwode ot waives bmosen « mo see ott Yo wk alt * 


agg sift YG adua sta eittvat fea? sy woakie g te pane odd at 
——— — ——— wie boas eat ode pen 3 


ond foe tau00 viallegga off Y6 analatveng wats ose * 
attiiexed Yeicedtiws gatiaid te ef eawen aftt mt bok2t E y's 
ie atiegeot Qt tebieusewt of od damian ow bowegeth 
Ot evad ow ,moiaiqa gale ah Soeweuges mibetord pore * ome: an⸗ 
—* a hisow eoldoowy # dow! «an ob od tly 
Sonaewges Jinan alt te demaghoh poe ‘Bite wieases ai? bas 


eemdet 
ace soa gutbald ext any © sat aoe Galt — pie ash 
—— aa od bhaow ai — ae = bie lewd eet? | 
HG BrayQerals OF 9S tos ered ots vc. seed Oy ow —— oe es — a 


weivos @ath? eff ao bamgtess don oxew Haiiy tata stor a 

ait? sands malera of ba a9 harteg od was toowedd ton cite arata⸗r ·· 
apedsxtel sv ee vec pathaod, ty wt bien sow was * —— | 
| sewOLLe? an emiedogs ode aeoaworee fumes ost onvan ee, Koad ‘A * 


ad et béebeongs @ eiood xterted oy and ncrstedts bwe att” * 
——— —2 wel add Od poe viguls 
50% bemgices fom eaw 42 nosawt ——— .. 
Holnige on besuetgas Peg one * aa 


| a e2adanh to bdao od evreadua btvow | 
7oCRe mtv e prod git # tebinage 2%, 
Pha I be ait oe 


wot 
—— off haveit tor Pekan 
nee tg —— al? mo exOrTs 
.. @@ feee miatood evisulonos Ont » 


















be 


rendered in the Lifetime of the parties interested. The general 
rule on this subject is, that, where ao enuse has been heard in the 
cireult court, reviewed in the Cupreme Court, end hos been remanded 
with directions as te the deeree that shall be entered, a party can 
not, on a subsequent appeal, assign for errer any cnuse that accrued 
prior to the former decision. Is is for the very watisfectory 
reason as stated in Somphe_vs Boer sors 4 Gilme 546, °it will be 
presumed, vhere a party sues out « writ of orrer una brings hig 
vase here for adjudicution, and the seme is determined upon the 
merite and errors sowigned, that he has no further objection to urge 
against the record, and that if errers exist, which are not so 
assigned, they ere waiveds’ 

"The error complained of existed in the former record. 
The party had on oppertumity then to sevign it, and direct the 
attention of the court te it, but, he failed te do #@, he ought 
te be eatopped, upon every principle of justice, from alleging, at 
= ae period, errer in the some record. Hed error intervened 
prior to the former adjudication, it wns his duty to assign it 
otherwise he will be deemed te have waived it forever. Ww 
not be permitted to have hie couse heard partly at one time and the 
residue at another." 


The mamiate of the Appellate court im the case at bar 
fileé in the Superior court July 1, 1931, waa merely an aft irmanee 
of the final decrees, and the order from which this appeal in taken 
eimply carried out the terms of that dceree with respect to the 
bank stock and the euit for an aecounting pending im the Cireuit 
courts it sought to de nothing more than enforee the lien ef the 
judgment on «hich the erediter'’s bill wae besed and wea strictly 
im aecordanee with the decision of the Appeliate court affirming 
the final cecrees 

The lew is well established thot the lewer court cannot 
be im error so long as ite action is im accerdence with the mencate 
of the reviewing court. [4 wae se held in smith ve Dugger, 316 (11. 
BLS, 2ié,y and the many cases cited thereina 

"Where a dveree is reversed amé the eause ie remanded 
Sta Sout tet faiune She cicteleey ta 


a Geeree entered in accordenee with euch directions camet be 
ever erroneous the directions may be. 


id fobs 
‘le ie hve ide AG s 


: ‘USER O: 2GLw Ve Oy" * De e 
There a aeeres has been reversed anc the couse romanded with specifie 
directions for the entry of « deerees om an appeal from the dcoree 
ec entered the only question presented ia, Yan the decree in 
accordance with the mandate and directions ef this court? 


(Chicago 
Railway -guiyment Cos ve National Hollow Brake-Bewe Coe, 239 Tlle 






















G25 ree a ee ee ae 


Ce gt Ne ee a re 


: : —— some? 903 at hetsine oo <orss oe 


(ol * — odin 7 Shag = 
oltipege tote habe ry ‘ons BS 







th ot? 4se¢aems Eek nod ome te oaksetid edd m2 2 inst 
ods at ee nood eesl @nuao & wLetw oo, * soajdve aint wo oly 


Sebroms seed aad bee «Sued yoy wodvat. —— oreks 
ae YStog & _ ho Tesae ed — ait xp Bh ee ae tk 
beuweea Sad? syuae ZO%XS2. (eS aes —— — 
Vee o a adi vot af st » ® tearso't eas oo tent 
od ifikw fi*. a ov ofagawes wk edad em | 











ald apuivd ore yor “a ghue a fue “Ben a tern — 
ont sequ benimede: af ema ou, ows — vied oar 
ame of aelisatde xeddurt on nal ef Joie —— ——* = ae ae 
at Jom ote totsy gSeixe everse, SL, oe 9 banner. dat as 


———— * Py ca —* 
— ————— ——— rene te Sonera a6 4 
bemeviedil torre hel .huoert cutee slo mi Ee eta 

it osu aan Beet —— 
om bre “et one de Vis: — — —* oe wal ee 
tad fe, ten0 ost Re pine ‘otationss, amt Be — ods 
nonewti tia me ylevem oer ohOGL oh yhet two wokregue wad mh ool * 
re ab ieoqqe oitd dois ment J orld ban ,xexos> toni add 26 
agit ue sonquet dikw comeh gad? le eeted ott doo Solutee yigaks 
viuetiS oft at gutbaeg gasteyooun ma sek shen geld, ane weeds daad 
aite ke wth edd gqxoies walt #tom yaideom 66 09 Ifguoa 41 eae "99 
Csolrte cow had dened amw 162d a teedtbawe ade Moksty me some * 
gaia The 72Ne9 aaliov ad te meratond nels ‘gabe vonaitevsa st 
ae — D Sunt: ⸗ 
— @wmho stewal edd Sad botlehidedas Liew of wad oat — 

Aodan od Mstw somcbvavce at at metéon s8t on gaol 8 torn ab od i 

offi GL5 4259 . at tod oe auw a2 sdwoo aahwolvor oat * : 

sateaedd adie ausae sta ont bow ys aa 
— 


ban guimiveoxth owertt wellet of * —1 
* Sonetaw anol seers tout Asia oot yf dow 























- ete ene eee enawee fie, te. Pre Riarsgig 
i vero ort aaW gui petit 
gaan ie ) fouaoe eed te —— —* 


——— 











«Te 


1al3 People we Dey, 279 ide 148-) A deeree entered by a trial 
oour accordance with the mandate of this court must be 
ed as free from errore It igsg in fact, the —~——— of 
s final 


t 
this court promiugated throwch the trial court and 
* neat upon all the partiese (Peophe ys Gilmer, 5 Gilm. 


There is no merit in this appesl and it appears to us 
te be an attempt to relitigate « cause which waa effectually 
and finally dispose’ of when the Supreme court denied defendant's 
petition for certiorard im the prior append, It was the duty 
of the trial court to enforces this deerec and to see that its 
findings were made effeetive by all proper and available means. 
We are convinerd that the trial court dic net err in outering 
the order appesled from. For the rensons stated herein the 


order of the Superior court is affiziede 
AB? TERM De 


Soamlans Pe dog and Gridley, J+» concure 


—— saw stodete ounae ‘a — —— ef 








‘Sitd atovodd Safode ameoer ad wt —— 10, * 
— mer est ay es pa om #; 9 













— i disc Hg i — 


ike yas ite * 
9 — 


le ⏑⏑ 







am —89 — 
* ae ba pore slg —* 











* f i j | 
_, . | 
NATHAN BROWN et ale, i 
Appellees, ; 
Ve 
APPRAL FROM AN 
PORAMAN<STATE TRUST & 
SAVINGS BANK et ale, INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF 
Defendants 
SUPHRION GOURT OF COOK 
COUNTY, APPOTRTING A 
On appest of PORUMMANe STATE 
TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, BRCUEIYER. — 1* 
Appellant. p) 6 U belie O 3 


MRe JUSTICK SULLIVAN PSLIVGUD THE GPINIGN OF THE COURT. 


The appellant prowecutes thie interlocutery appeal 
from an order of the Superior court of Cook county appointing 
Yrank C. Rathje receiver pendente lite of a certain trust estate. 
This order was entered January 18, 19355, the day after a deeree 
Was entered removing appeliant as trustee and appointing Frank C. 
Rathje aa suecesser trustee. The Poreman-°tate Trust 4 Savings 
Bank (hereinafter referred to aa the bank) and other defendants 
appealed from thie deovee, thus staying the suthority of Sathje 
te act os trustee ond rendering necessary the appointment of a 
reeelvyer pendente Lite. 

Seme of the owners of firet mortgage perticipation 
certificates in a trust created under an agreement of sugust 1, 
1927, between A+ G. Becker & Company, a corporation, and the 
Foreman Trust 4 Savinge Sank (of which the Poreman-State Trust 
& Savings Bank is successor by consolidation), filed « dill of 
complaint Jonuary 15, 1932, im the Superior court aud subsequently 
several amendments therete in behalf ef themselves ané all other 
holders of participation eertifieates cimil«rly situated, in which 





Hh MOR —** ct 

@ mano vaormezem | 
ave Oo TARO Aon ua 
A UE TEL OTA Xrwo 


=A 88. oA, LO ove 








fesqge yrotamokiedms gists — — — J 
maid dat oaua yinuee Food Yo saves sobrogu® af? Xo xobvte 0 mot 
odates tert? mtadvee » tO gghh edumbane unetooet, ota 12 neat 
Sorooh = sede Yod odd gEECL 48 yxaumah owes uae sob bt 
+9 saw yetintoaia bee eotawrt ws tmnLoags sntvenex boxed aa” 
ageivs: & tows? ategi-anmncet eft somdasret weuesogsa ea olsti as 
aduaduoted voi ous (steed elt an of torestox softantornd) daa 
sjldei to ylredine ods yubyada eanté storved aldd ao7% — ) 
& to ineainioggs edt qinescoon — Pte ooe ur⸗ ar soa Loe 7 
‘ 









moh sagkod diay owan⸗ tom faxit 20 evamwe of? Yo ome hae 
of tasrgn to dnemvetge na tobe heteens aauas 4 sit —R an 
end hen ymoldotegtee « «yRngmOD A matgel 4B «A —V — — Fan 
tusrt edati~nameto® wit Aotelw to) sta sanives & dower ret “i 
to L426 0 SeLtY «(aphéadhiosnce yf weeeveven ut dual ayabyad : 
Utsoupeudsm ban sugon vobtoqws wx? mi 9OUL Et yxaumel tuts 
suddo Lin dus sevSvamad? to tiated at oteredd adwen 
okstw at yboteutie yLceLlote astacttienen moksagked 














oe 


they charged misconduct and malfearance om the part ve the bank 

as trustee and prayed for the removal of the trustee and an 
accounting of its conduct of the trust, the repayment to the trust 
of certain moneys, the appointment of a receiver pendente Lite, the 
appointment of a new trustee and for other relief. A+ Ge Beoker & 
Gompany, which was engaged in the investment business and a party 
te the trust indenture, and five members of a committee representing 
other holders of participation certificates were olso named as 
parties defendant. 

A final decree was entered Janucry 17, 1933, which found 
among other things, that the defendant trustee wes guilty ef miscon- 
duct and malfeoeance in its sdminietration of the trust and ordered 
the removal of the trustee and the appointment of Frank Ce Rathje 
ae successor in trust. ‘The deeree ordered a reference to a master 
in ehaneery for an accounting and the court wider the terms of the 
éeeree retained jurisdiction of the cause for all preper purposese 
The dank and all the other defendants except the state auditor of 
public secounts, who had been made o party defendant in one of the 
amendments to the bill, perfected separate appeals from this ¢ecree 
which are now pending in this courte 

It appears that the Auditer ef Bublic Accounts of the 
State of Illinois had taken charge of the properties and aasete of 
the bank Jamucry 6, 1933, ond had appointed » receiver fer it and 
that Jonuary 7, 1933, the cirouit court upon proper petition cone 
firmes the appeintment of the auditor's receiver and from ane after 
that date that receiver or the suecensor receiver (hereinafter 
referred to ae the Cirouit court receiver) appointed by the auditor 
and confirmed by the Circuit court Jenuary 24» 19535, has been con~- 
tinuously im possession and control of all of the property and assets 
ef this trust cotate and all other properties owned by the bank or 
held by it in truste 


ee 





ad? ao Gonscastion orm gouhsosalet bepress youd 
— is bas cotaursd edd Yo Levomes edt sab oven bts sefawed as 
deux? odd 2 dnwegeqes edd dawn? wt? Yo doubmon att to gukdawonds 
064 qQ$lk etuodueg tovlover 2 to Suamintoggn ods yaypnom miagsa, Re 
& aadigo® 2D oA stolfon radde xok inn coduircd wen 8 Yo sasmiatogge 
Wirag 2 bas cunmtewd dmamtyowet en? at beuagee new Molitw «ysagand 
galdnoacsest soddiamee « 20 wieder evil bas 19m enohad taurus odd of 
as boman sla oxew acdnp!tisx09 notéegiotiung Yo exetted xeiddo 

| Se a 

. bawet Molstw gt8@L QPL — —E caw —E fants Pigg 
erosnin ko ytlivy saw sedannéd aushastes ot? tadd eagetsd codigo yaome 
— 
tide oD aa Yo smomintogge aut? ban ooduwxt odd Yo Lavemon mf 
totead a W ———— — 2— 



















— E nik at ao a ade ad 
$i With nina ‘Sing sed tse ubehea GS inate dd. th AEM is 
os Yo ond mt Sendneiad wre sha Hood baat ad gabe 3 


— gS one 
re 4 


te efecos Bits aki xeqerg ads 20 grade mectnd “pa “ * bad 
bts #2 tot «evicoor » dedmbonge dad bma 28808 49 Cxeuteo’ vinad old 
=t90 mokstdeg weROTy ——— thawte oat stot — umes’ tat 
nade bia wort bus tevivoot arog bbws “qld te tnomtatogge sit bowsit 
redtentorht) wytodex aonapsbie ef?’ 20 > tevhovo beat 2 
sotitun os yd wdateaga (xovtsoox —— Stok? hor 
-no0 ved wast tbes .d8 yasuiat Prue Pleoxkd edd ys 











January 13, 1935, the day after the entry of the deerece 
in this esee, the complainants filed a petition slleging that the 
bank and certain other defendants had perfected appeals from the 
Geerces that January 6, 1935, the state auditor had taken possession 
of all of the property of the bank, including the property of this 
trust, under seetion 11 of the Illinois Banking ‘ct and had appointed 
a receiver thereof that the bank because of the action of the 
auditor in appointing a receiver had become ineapable ef performing 
ite duties as trustee of the trust in question; and that such per- 
fected appeals from the deeree would act as o supersedeay and stay 
the authority of Prank C. Rathje to act au successor trustee curing 
the pendency of the appenle. The petition eoncluded with the prayer 
that the court appoint a receiver pendente lite te take possession 
of the properties belonging to the trust, administer them pending 
the appeal, and held them subject to the order of the Superior court 
until sueh appeal shall be finally determined. After the hearing 
om this petition the court appointed Frank C. Rathje reeciver 
pendente Lite of this trust. 

The motion of the appellees to diemias the appeal from 
the order appointing Rathje reeviver pendeste lite, - the ruling 
on which was reserved, - ia denied, but the points urged for and 
against the motion have been considered in the determination of the 
igsue presented by this appeal. 

The bank contends that there wes no legal juctifieation 
fer the appointment of « receiver pendente lite to take possession 
of the trust property after the entry of the final dcerce and that 
ne such appointment was werranted except, becouse, and by reason 
of matters which occurred subsequent to the entry ef the cceree and 
that nothing did cecur after the entry of the decree im this ense 
that ealled for the appointment of a receiver; that there were no 


proper pleadings in the case upon which te base such an orderg 


si ae 


| gorges odd Ye vate acs Yoda Gab eff geeee ye Yteinet cr 
(aie tact githge Rte mel dH oq & SOEFY addienctibtieate wae Youd’ Whit a 
| el? woe? elasqan Sedootweq tert afanbuetad rede al ac nc ics so 
ne Eeasvacy evitnd bind Hoethin etate std {TERE 4 Pxantias Patt youubel 
eit tO Yfrsxosy entt gubsetent sien odd to YesegoTy eal? Yo Lin tw 
 pedadonge bad tre fo) ebtade abomt Ls? of Yo LE mnddded ‘doteu stares 
eee ee maki ele te eemned Maas edd cate PYote ‘twvhever a 
yaleroiceg to efdoqant omoxed bad yovtooen « gubdategge wt ae ie 
~ tog sows doit dan (aoktaowp at gauet oe te setews? ax ene oe 
qetu bux gactinaxeeds a an fbn’ Skew vososd Sd set eaoigs booed 
Babe eotawtd tomnvouus us doa U2 sbitet.9 danet Ye Yeieath aoe 
ow ous dake benudones 5 ‘siti —“ —E 























ae ————— a ee 


— morid xedutstabs yteuee ext) 02 petpestod dol * * 
—E aobzaque oad te — ‘pate ‘ed footena mst ot * * 
‘arch zoned ould sogks ‘ebenlarreted ‘gihenk? Cs ——— igs gt 


tovioves —— 0 date enia⸗ esd 





tacit ban ate ob ack out * vite ont rune sie . “a 
mona eat bane sonsioned —— oe pe 
bite beens oft te ‘gxaho ont? ra ————— ke i " 

‘ —— ae Hand —— — dbo we 








whe 


that at the time of the entry of the order sppointing Prank @. 
RARRGO, wepetvete the property was in the possession of the 
Cireuit/recciver, and thet the Circuit court receiver should 
have been made a party to the proceedings in the Superior court. 
For a proper understanding ond determination of the 
ienue presented it is neceavary to visualize the exact picture 
presented. ‘im the first instanee it appears that the bank, acting 
as trustee of thie trust, was charged with malfeasance in the bil) 
filed in the Superior court, and removed as trustee because of ite 
alleged misconduct and malfeasance. 1% further appeared that 
Ae Ge Booker & Company, the other party to the trust indenture, 
was diagualified under the terms of the ceeree from appointing a 
successor trusteeg that Frank C. Rathje was appointed successor 
trustee by the Superior courty that the bank and other defendants 
perfected appeals by reason of which "rank ©. Rathje was precluded 
by operation of law from asewning his duties ae successor trustee 
until the final determination of the appeals; that the bank, whose 
Guty it was to continue aa trustee pending ite appeals was unable to 
act as trustee because of the appointment of « receiver for it by 
the Gireuit court, which receiver head been appointed and had been 
im possession of all of the assets and property of the bank, in- 
@luding the asvete and property of this trust, since prier te the 
entry of the Superior court's deerce and continuously since that 
times that Prank ©. Kethje wae appointed receiver pendente Lite 
of this trust by the Superior court, Jomary 18, 1955; that 
the Cireuit court receiver, whese duty it was under the law to 
esuee the bank to revign as trustee within a reasonable time and 
te make proper accounting of the trust om behalf of the banks 
refused to comply with the demand of Prank C. Nathje as such 
receiver pondente Jite te turn over te him the property and ausets 
of this trust and asserted claims, that if allowed would mean the 








whe 


a seu 
—— 


o8 tent gabdatocas websa odd ts viene odd to amid off fe Sade 
ead ‘te molnnaae Om ef? ai aaw vivigory ads veer goo otaaa 
waste ‘devisees ino dhuext® ald ‘and brs — ——— 
taupe sob roger odd mt apittheoverg esd ea wrt 2 sham mood | ovat 
"'pitd Yo no2é satersote bres ‘guubbaade ssbew roqong ‘3 at re 


poe 












‘ermal, fooxe oats oshtausty as ——— at a bedaseomn * 
AN si A ees ee ey io 
grison yinad ast snits stnsqde yh onmedent ‘deat? ‘oad = — D—— 
———— settaass tien délw bogs vate naw atauxd wbcid te ood wed : 
ut to seunted osdsurr? ea boveaes baw gdwoo sobxoque ‘ond Cs | 
" Getd boxssqga woddart ax  eommastion bas hesketoolar souls beget 
. —— — 364 a5 #3 ate 5} 
sotsdawsat tavxd ade of yixaq toddo eld « ioe Sh +0 
* ‘ij asival® oes 
a nabintoggs most sarees add te acted os xobaw bet path maw 
* “toose ois betakogqa ane absent 2 aot dost Aesdased zoxageowe 


—— 


—— el st Ga 
Ww 






















— xedte bits awd ant beat #7009 otrequit sald 
ae | eT : 


bobuoowg ev ofsléak «0 aur daldie 10 moaaox wf aeons 
— ———— ached als — sort ae ve * 


ot olden saw giuduge od} paibnog 8 we Be 
yee x08 ‘wrieoes & to wwauna oth * —2* ees 


— wal ond weber wae — evoda — seen ied pai wig ; 

atta combs abaas 294 s —— sober as 2 aihson ot Saad * dt ome 
bpraprporregr pret berereer 

— bae — Sand and oF t9ve, * od pokes 





fe 


serious diminution of same and that sre inimical to the interests 
of those holding the $6,000,000 first mortgage participation 
certificates im this truate 

February 24, 1955, *remk (. Rathje filed an intervening 
petition in the dissolution proceedings againat the bank pending 
in the Cireult court, in which he agked thet Charles Ne Albers, 
the reeeiver of the bank, be ordered to turn over to Rathje all 
of the property and asvets of this trust. lbers filed an anewer 
to this petition contesting the right of Rathje to the poxseasion 
and control of the property and eacete of ike trust and included 
in the allegations of hia answer are the following: 


"The complainants and intervening petitioners (in the 
Superior court procecdings) and the holders of @ertificstes issued 
against the said securities «hich are part of acid trust estates 
have by the institution and prosecution of sald cuit (im the 
Superior court) elected te repudiate and not toe secept such 
seourities »@ purchased by said Trustes and have eleeted te obtain 
a@ money judgment against seid trustee for the amount thereof, and 
by reason thereof the caid savets se rejected wre gencral asnets 
of the Foreman-itate Trust & —5* Benk not earmarked fer amy 
specific purpose and as such are ject only to the erders of 
this court, In the order appointing said Aathje aa Receiver BADR. 
dites mo distinetion ta sate between asveets found by the deeree 
Superios court to be properly assets ef anid trust estates and 
———— —— co te belong AY na? * eetates, and 4 —* 
por 2 order appoint enia Heceiver Beucsn te i 
directing #11 persons having savets belonging te said trust estates 
te deliver seme over to said Aceeliver, no digtinetion is made 
between auch accepted ond rejected asvetas 
"Your reepemdent further avers that the fair proportion 
of the extimated costs of thie receivership, which the said trust 
atates eveated by and existing uwmier indenture of trust, 
the trust involved in thie preeeeding) based upon the est imated 
present yolue of the said truct estates, is net less than the 
sum of $90,000, * # # 


It is clearly indicated by the foregoing thet it wee the 
intention ef Albers as general receiver of the bank te charge 
this truet, which at the time was under hie control and manage- 
ment, with large sums of money in favor of the bank and to compel the 
trust to turm ever its property and pay ite money im large smounte 
to him as reeeiver of the bank. This vould mean 0 serious depletion 
of the assets of the trust. The statute prevides that the bank 


—— heneednd edt 98 dovtubat exe * — onc * —— yes 
nera aauot te ogegdrom dank? 0024000988 Ba pmiatod v8 
—— oa⸗ alas at aoteainere 
prtapersint | sae 5 bette —— * sean 08808 obs wearer 
nating dnnd edi donkeys anai boooeay nol dufooutd ed mod the 
quredia 6H aefuedd godt oeaien od Avie mt —D — ———— a 
Lis otalo an os Tove eruaia oe —E od vinas oats * vnw · silt 
Tere ie oe post’ ered£a stant ass te aénuen fae vi any | a ' 
molsues ng etd as whit ro dey ls au⸗ ga fannie wot sisoq nin? 68 
—— bas sowed oe Be adewes oes — wat te torino ban 
| tymbwo ite? ots os ovn eia kes * auei: aa it⸗ ous Ca 
| ‘eda at) extemal si toq 33338 baw 























deieal sodsel 
Reiasnn inne Saye epg 3 te Susy etm Moldy anked 
@tus bien 2m Beitiowaoag bas 
ae Grae a som bea etebingey « 
tieide e¢ dedcuis oval bose catew? > 2 
hens gtooteds Jawome eds set 


wdosns oie heteetst oe 
Ye «st ——e gon ded 
te eyaaee ed? ¢ @ ton 


































oasis nk baw asedadas sacad ation o2. ere ery? 
bane —— bias —* —J— ‘te mol supe 
‘whaes a2 tahdonk doth —— — ———— —E ‘4976 oan tovitab © 


wold segorq ziay oats desi? —— ee en iat 
éayt biee ideas —2 
etezsd be pn one ba ag ‘xe bene ve ats 3. 


ina * uf 4 
betmatioe elt moge beegd (pukbeenong : —— ise a ud) 
ot made anol son ai cebtedes dust Aba Agee 
cg —8B 
add ow Zh OO———— J 
oyrnito 09 died att te wevtooey soxeney aa. aoei⸗ te —* ag —9 


262 


reoviyer must exuse the bank te resign from its trusts within a 
Feasonable time and it is folly te argue that it should be per- 
mitted te administer the affairs of this trust indefinitely or 
umtil the final determination of the appeals. ‘Such a course of 
procedure by = bank receiver was net only not contemplated under 
the law but it is prehibited by the banking act itewelfe Under 
the cixcumstanees ef the ense at bar it would be incompatible for 
the bank receiver with his claims againet this trust to continue 
in charge of ite affairae {tt is apparent that his interest ag 
receiver for the bank and his interest im the adminietration of 
this particular truet conflict. The beneficiaries of this trust, 
who are the owners of the participation certificates, have the 
right te insist tat the affaires and property of the trust be 
administereé exclusively in their interest. 

Albers aleo avers in his angwer that it was not 
legally contemplated that he as the bank's reeciver should turn over 
and account fer the assets of this trust to any but a properiy 
designated successor in trust, and inaenuch as the right and power 
of Frank J. Rathje te act under the ceeree of the Superier court 
designating and appointing him successor trustee has been stayed by 
reason ef the bank’s appeal from that dcerea, ani beowuse the bank 
whose duty 1% would have been te continue to act as trustes pending 
the appeal can mot act, because ite power to act as trustes has been 
taken from it by the deeree of the Cirewit court ordering its 
@issolution and the appointment of a receiver for it, that he as 
such bank receiver is the only proper person to administer thie 
trust pending the fimal determination of the appeal from the decree 
of the Superior court. The statute does not provide that after 
the resignation by the bank as trustee the property and assets of 
the resigned trust must necessarily be turned over to & successor 





# widdtw atewsd att sox? mpinox ef Simad odd sans Pou tevieoee 
“T9q od btuoste te fasts omg et yt? at st Cs omaha ‘oh canon eee 
so “Kediattebat guucé als? te extetths wid aetcimbshs ot aati 

te oevoo & dom akaeags sult Ye mob autmsodod Sent? sald Steme 

“ gobans seagate tom here tox vow covtooos ana’ @ yt omurbooome 
“eek 4 Etonde toa ymtsaod esto ww bodiedtong wh a tut wok itt 
nat oLdh toqzoon? od bivow ah tad ts sap ould te oSon⸗d anus cto eae 
awit too os damné wads sonhage att nko wi taiy wevboass tnd ond 
an tossodut ait tacts dnwtoggs a2 at rebate aah ve wyins mt 

| te nod dersolninks J Ra tooseded uid bow nes ats 2h tavionox 
efewnd atid te avixatel tong ont? to — dows xalvod frag, ants 
vate overt youtas heros not aagtut aran od? Ye sieeve only Oral ose 











biog tn. High’ oa 0 —** isin ‘deni ai narwooue bovangiuad 
fxvep rekveqno ade to. —X sad xebaw doa a ‘obser 5 6 ‘nox Ye 
ed boyate mood gat vodusud mayeecou mid pabdntogus ima pal damptno’ 
nay edd satiaved brs eooteed dadé. mexk Levene. ahinad 2 ast 
— ‘amt tan ot anne aden Gh hat : 
ads — sues dhwoxil eed Io —X aa⸗ w ot most , 

ae od dal? gad aot awwhouer ® te Susuendoage ons tes —— 
isd sedakalmba oo soe reg —E vio eas | a “sovioves ‘ ey | 












guxoeb of? moxt Leoqua odd Ye mek toekisred ob font’ te — a — 


“toda teats odtvont sort noob otudnse ont ott i ee 
‘te aSeenn bite <sreqong oats oodames ns + des * * ele 
| wsenvome 3 a save bam Rath onl 
. —— . 


* 


Ja 


trustee, and in this ease where circumstances hod arisen that 
rendered it tupessible to turn such asvets over to any trustee, 
and where the facts and circumstances demonutrate that the bank 
receiver is disqualified from administering the affaires of this 
trust, we are foreed to the conclusion that the Cireuit court 
receiver should ag soom ao he reavotably can deliver the property 
ond assets of this trust to Nathje,the receiver pendente Lite _ 
appointed by the Superior court, whe is the only person under this 
record equitably entitled to have and contre) theme 

Upon the filing of the bill im the Superier court sbeut 
a year before the Auditor of Public Accounts of the State of 
Tllineis tock charge of the property and assets of the bank and 
mamed un receiver for it, that court had and aacumed jurisdiction 
of the subject matter of this trust estate and in due course 
ordered the removal of the bank as trustee and appointed Rathje 
as successor trustee, ami simce he was precluded fram functioning 
ag trustee because of the appeals it was the duty of that court 
te exercise its power by amy means available to conserve the property 
and aszets of the trust im the interest of ite bemeficiaries exclusives 
lys This it properly did by appointing Frank C+ Rathje to act as 
receiver pevidente lite pending the final determination of the main 
appeal in this caste 

The bank devoted most ef its reply brief te the contention 
that, notwitheteanding the appointment of the receiver for the bank, 
the bank was mot deprived of ite capacity te continue te act as trustee, 
and that while the receiver superseded the officers and directors of 
the bank in the administration of ite affairs the Cireuit court 
receiver could, through the instrumentality of the bank ac trustee, 
continue administering the affaire ef this trust as a trustee. 

This argument is fallacious and is clearly an erroneous 
statement of the law. Section 1 of the Illinois ‘tate Banking — 


tek? meaiia Sh seonadaeyp tle opie ceo abit wh baw qeedagse 
goaded wie oF Love aituae dove mad oF eldlaccqa J) bexedmet 
gned acd Jak? etaxtenaem> svonatouvenso ia vine) ade + eb 
aid? te extetin old ped wetebebebe,eopet, 602% sd ak, xevbomes 
sree Thomake off odd moleulones add oF ‘iis eae 
‘ereqen, od? ayviies ape ylcanannes ad ge -moey an Shanda yaviseut 
MOIS ghee ees weVionet vidgoisnd of daaret alds, 20, afeoas, seo 
aid? schas seaxeq vino eid of oe «txmee wedsoqes oft. v Sntetonee 
saotid Lowsnes San even of bolsdina vided tupe Mmow 
suede tuses sodaeqes, odd mi LLid old Bo pelted odd nog’ . —D 
0— 
— ———— 
492 aovhoood ae. 
sere wb at dun atedas teucd whats Yo. xeddam toni dine ai 
ofidal sodntouge dae ontaurd ne aimed ad? Yo Lavemex sald bowel 
@atooivenu?t maxt bebe looxg aay of wont bee 9! odes J 2 ms 
woo dals 20 Yd oA? eam SF ehongee old Ie sansons sadmnt ya 
Cinqer, af? ovteesos of atdskiars atana ya yt xe OM att vakars xo 9d 
~ovieutoxs avttatosteaed aft ko daoxednt add at taut att Ye adggas bes 
O fing Of nbstaR 60 Anant wattatonga WE Mt. — — 
hae wilt Io MeL tantaredeh Lak echt gab bein vt we: 


~ ———— Oe 
——— —— 


























te atovserly fae aücasd do add hobsa teqgue sovteoos eld 4s. * 
Soo thuo 4d acd extetteost So wolsastad ' 
—— oa aed edd Yo Pi dad ommentanh etd Syworuts bi wen 
— — — — ee 


30 


Law provides: 

“It whall be lewful to form banke and banking ansociations, 
ag hereinafter vided, for the purpose of discount and deposit, 
buying and sell exchange and doing a general banking business, 
excepting the iseuing of bills te circulate ag moneys and wuch banks 
or banking sevociatione shall have the power * loan — on personal 

and real estate security, and to accept and execu trust amd shall 
ny subject to all of the provisions o chi a AC 

Ite right te accept and execute trusts was one of ita 
functions as a bank, in mo greater nor less degree than its right 
and power to lend money, accept deposits or perform any of its 
other authorized functions. Its power and right to funetion in any 
capacity as a bank terminated on the appointment ef the receiver 
for it and the entry of the deerce of dissolution by the Cireuit 
court, which found in part aa fellows: 

"Ther enid Receiver, pursuant to said appointment 
and under the — * ané by the direction of said Auditer of 
Public Accounts, has taken possesaion of the books, recorde and 
ascete of every deseription of said bank and is new proceeding to 
Collect all the debts, duce and clisime be. ing t@ enid defendant 
bank at the time of hie appointment «os such Meceiver, andi anid 
Receiver is now Ng nage the duties ineident te such reeetvership, 
as required by the laws of the State of Dliimeis in such cases made 
and provided, ami thet the authority of such defendant bank to cone 
éuct a banking business under the statutes of the State of [Liinois 
has ceased and determined." 

Even were the main deeree reversed the appellant vould no 
longer function as trustee of thie trust and we ean cenceive of no 
interest of the appellant thet wa» er could be adversely affected 
by reason of the appointment of Frank (+ Rathje as receiver pendente 
Lite by the Superior court. However, in order te consider the 
merite of the issues presented, we have aseumed thet the bank had 
euch an appealable interest in the subject matter of this proceeding 
as gave it the right to appeale 

Complaint ia made that G@QCESy Albers, the general 
receiver of the bank who was in possession and control of the 
property of the trust at the time the deeree was entered in the 
Superior court and the receiver appointed pendente Lite, was not 


made a party to the proceedings in the Superior Gourte That suit 





i satolieiontes gubsasd bao simed osel oo Litenk wd Liete FI" eh 
| —— bens taveoesS ke ugez aif too — es 
gaa mhes ingen ; i 


aS ona epnedons 
sina Hou bas {YyeHon aA ——— ed at oats 
as : 





afi te 8% saw aseutd esunexs tte Yqaces Of dfigix asl. “apts ty 
—— taigh tt sett ooRged anak con Sodaeny on at yaland es Ge omee dome: 
) adh te yas mietiog co atieoqed sqevee gyonee baad of seweg Bago 
Yoo at aottone: of Migix bee wowed eet ——— “anther: 
| 
| 
| 







 eeyiesor ad’ to tmuaieqge od? no Gutentoned Uned & ua Yes (a 
Sisost® als yd aohiniossts Ye ootped ate Be — ‘end ham 22 aad 











Se eeh ene tre aoe 
stoatiit te otes23 aa⸗ te sotat ads — 
— 000 — 
—, 
aotao Na Veowteven a6 Sivoo xe caw Salt tankdowge ats Ye doertmh 
Sieekaeg wevieoss es obits .9 deer to inemtetongs ode 20 ag·a WE 
ad? thistos of tebse a) ,tevegll . une webu td Oe te 

ad sinad okt Sudd kemweas ehetmnnems gnwent at te.bi qm 

| α —— 








Loven, alt yavedt. x 


“Geo 


hed been instituted nearly a year privr to the appointment of the 
receiver by the Cirowit court, and the atate auditor of puvhic 
accounts who originally appointed Ibers was a party defendant 
therein and had mutice of that proeceding. The Cireuit court 
receiver was not a necessary party to that suit but there is 

ne question about his right to have intervened therein for the 
purpose of being made a party any time after his appointment if 
he had seen fit to do s+ 

There is no foree to the contention of the bank that 
the action of the Superior court im appointing a receiver pendente 
Lite ofter the entry of the final ceoree was unwarranted end in 
any event such azpeintment should not have been mace umileen preper 
plesdings were filed alleging matters that occurred subsequent to 
the entry of the deeree that justified such action. Prank C. 

Rathje waa appointed reeciver pendente Lite the day after the 

entry of the final deeree upon a petition thet included by reference 
the pleadings theretofere filed in the case. This petition alleged 
that the Cirewuit court receiver was im possession of the bank's 
property, including the property of thie trust; thet Rathje was 
unable to act ae trustee because of the appesle from the deoree 

and that it was necesnary that a receiver be appointed, ponding 

the determination of the appeals from the final deered, to conserve 
the property and ascets ef thig trust. 

We have been unable te discover any decision in this or any 
other state, or any law enunciated im the text sooke prohibiting the 
appointment of » receiver after a final decree, if the facts and eire 
cumstances are euch as te warryant such action. in the inatant case 
the ¢ircumstanees were such thet ii was not only proper but positively 
necessary that the chancellor, bent om conserving the property of this = 
trust solely in the interests of its beneficiaries, make such appointe 
ment. By reason of the subsequent conduct of Albers, the 


of? tH txemintuqga aid ef teteq tory @ Yfueon podudnial® weed We 
r organ ageing ieee etwde oe brim ghtron —— 
| ditahine be yreag @ maw oxeEs m ontee⸗ Atenistce osbr — — 
deo shams oe eat Soseoy tot ww ‘ok it tad 
ei sxsdd dud thse dott of Ytroy txmdevodie w adil id Wit 
ec wt tore None cith weilt UE RY WEN task settaney 
th Seoseneenge eta —* ome? ae ‘eit ‘iy whi? a 4 
«ob Od an wa ll 
dade dead odd YO nbEtmotawe ete oF SeteY O% at wrod 8 
eixebrsy vevicsex 4 guidveteqgs mi dares pobaoqet bake Ye webden Wik 
— — ————— 
tego 7g — — 88777 — * 
¶ shen ssn Se mint to - 
aono vonen ——— toa maistiog a 5 oar 
begets mnbat oe aiat wsasy etd wk ponte 


























gow offidal gadd (dated fds Yo —e* ‘wala woud ) 
SEtesn ants Ps a alasgya gute to vennoed ee Se ce FP 


Wa ue alts at — “novedades of exes need Ovadt Si” —* 





,,,,,,,,,————— — 
vintage doin sem quotvetottomed ath to edeorddmt off mh Uerdd dames 
halt yeneek) he Joubnen Smenpeedee edd to Moceet YE —2* 








-100 


Cireuit court reeriver, in asserting claims in his anewer to the 
intervening petition in deregation of the interests of the trust 
estate, it wes even more apparent thet the chancellor of the 
Superior eourt ordered not only correetly, but wisely, in his 
appointment of a reeeiver pendenge Lites 

It was manifestly mecessary that some one especially 
charged under the direction of the court with the conservation of 
this estate have ite possession and custedy to guard and protect 
it against any and every unwarranted claim or attacks It would 
be anomalous ond inconsistent to permit the Circuit court receiver 
te contrel and represent both the bank and this trust against which 
he hes asserted extensive claims in favor of himself ac reeciver 
ef the bank. The only person legally ampovered te receive the 
property and assets of this truct from the Circuit court receiver 
was and ig Frank ©. Rathje, receiver pendente lite appointed by 
the Superior courte 

The bank cites the enee of Belofeky v, Johneon, 266 Ill. 
Appe 351, and urges that the epinion therein is decisive of the 
issue presented by this appenl. That cxzse is readily distinguishable 
from the cnse at bare The facts were entirely different and no 
such combination of cireumetanees existed there an heres 

Por the resaena stated it ic our opinion that the chancelier 
was justified in appointing a receiver pendopte dite uncer «il the 
circumstances dinclosed, and the order of the Superior court appointing 
such receiver pendente Jite is affirmed. 

ASFIRME De 


Seamlans Pe Jeg and Gridley, Je, eoncurs 





ai od went alt nt omtaie sutixeces, at gauvienex gauge #he = 
dawed edt Yo aduoredal ait te mektegotas wh madshieg get 





eiei eh gyfoulw fu guhteexsen ules tem M — ae. 
+adeh stuobmeg sevicoss 4 Yo tmominteqge 
forgery bre brewg of Udetere —ãB 
biwor 22 .doeste we mkele b rarereen yeove dea vie dantage #2 
wovicoox $sxes GluwtkD eft tierce of dxedetanonh ban swokamome of 
“Seebenor ta tent: 20-eerat st amtate: wntomnten, etzoens and et 
oh evkooes O38 Deteregem Yiloget apered vine: of. — mt te 2 
nevivoe? #ivoo Stew ete wovk Gsrid alt? Yo mdones das ytregony 
we be enitoces Rekk stetinatt Novtoven eo blde® 69 siner ot tae ese 
: 7 | ome —“ 



























"tt WO Gena x gaan 0 ne kk nade Sen ae 
se De rion at leon tng add todd aoe S oEE og | 
sidoistwgutials Uihest af eene dadT «heaqge elds yl bedmoseny ane: | 
On bus snow tld wLerksne oxee efvek wet. ——— —— 





svted ua oval? bodales eogaedsammtte to molienhduso Aoite : 
eoitivmaito aft Jade aotatqe wwe wt th hedads umvones ett ze 
eid Ile tobe 9922 stuahusg weviecsy a yatintegge mt petntdent, saw 


—“ — ——— 










—80 * ada * “ ettakaas® 


aie Sige Bos whe 8a9 


é —X te * ? ‘Gar ig ¥ —R 


— me F wee oe * assed — rr 
5 sie ee ft ies — Be i 


3 a 
Ve 
« oie AT 


/ 


PeaL From / 


⸗ 


“wont 
F 


MUNICIPAL coup 


36227 
EDWARD V. CORFE, 







Plaintiff, Avveliee, 
Ve 
ADAMS & RAGAN MANGFACTURING COMPANY, 
a Corporation, HETHOPOLITAN FINANCE . 
CORPORATION, a Gorporation, and 
CHARLES E. OSBOKNE, 


Defendant, Appeliants. 


COOK GOUNTY. 


€ 0 L.A. 63 b 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CoURT. 

This was an aetion in replevin in the Municipal Court te 
recover certain property of plinintiff under « chattel mortgage issued 
by the defendant Adams 4 Ragan Manufacturing Company to one Stanley 
F. Ragan and by him assigned to the plaintiff. The action was sub- 
sequently changed to one of trover. The mortgnge became due under 
ites terms and the plaintiff gave Adame 4 Ragen Hanufacturing Company 
notice of foreclosure and placed » custodian in charge. The 
property was taken by the Metropolitan Finance Corporation relying 
on a subsequent chettel mortgage made and executed by Mathew 
Adamaitis. 

it is insisted on behalf of the defendanta: 

(a) That the chattel mortgage of plaintiff was not properly 
executed; 

(ob) That the boerd of directors did not euthorice the 
execution of the chattel mortgage to the plaintiff and that Mathew 
Adamaitis had no authority te execute it; 

(c) That the holder of the chattel mortgage did not show 
that he was entitled to the property; 

(4) That there wes no demand on the defendants; end 

(e) That the Wetropoliten Finance Corporation, an 
Tilinois corporation, wos never in possession of the property. 


From the evidence we sre of the opinion that the plaintiff 










nd : — gtHO v | KE 
ooLtouah Minded 
Bad 


RNS a aed. EA 


3 pasa Waa BADAN & & 


% an cof X 
— 


HUGO LACED THOM 


Auuann 


189 ul OVS — 


eses AS: xslt beste wetnigo wet gape eadeat are 

‘tay00 349 Yo HOTMIYO aut oanavaray et al gorgaue, —— 
ot dre’ Laqiolmuit ant at aivelges as Bo kt on Be eo gidh .” 
vorrei ‘opeyttom Lertede s xebay ¥tdadeig a ysxaqeng a 3 — 


yolantt ano of vaoanoo padrutoa tame cage & amabA tashasied oda dy 


due sew molten od? “sYhitniadg ode ot demytene mad v — ‘ha 
rohit ob omnes ouentson odt roves? to oto ot Be re. 


« Bihntee 






ee 















qe! yedretes tune sayali 4 aauda ovey ———— oad. * aed ei t 
ett —“⸗ aatbotere 8 hows hae 









— — 
Ko — 
a Ne) SB 


¢ ied J st * oft ad : | ——— a; 2 3 
i i oat Bat its A ef, i Naar * Bee * OUR: 
ee "ete eb ede te thasied ne pogeteat at a 


LR 


(ixeqerd Sot sew Yelvatela te — fattest « * 5 


ate J a 


odd or beoiltve tom bED wivteertD Yo bused edt todt — 9 : A ee 
wedtst gods bas tdatalg wd of oyoyiton tetisdo ode a! ) aobtuoen® . 
i la pa eebeake BF wWinedtue on hed Stthamabh 
wode ton Bib opayixon fostado’ Ati" tebtol be dade (0) 


iyrreqeng edd o¢ beltitae asw ed tadt 


WS 





be jetachaeteh odd mo daemed on gaw erode tadt: (BP) omnihec” 


me ytoiveroqned eomentt uatiiogottel edt tad? (02) = 
.Wreqerq att to moteesenod mi Tove eew .oldereqzoo stoatiit 


y i 68 


maeatala oa⸗ decta notaige od? to ore ow sousbive * sort 









3 

was induced to lend the corporstion money on the assumption that the 
note and mortgage executed by the corporation and held es auch, was, 
in fact, the note of the corporation. The defendants had knowledge 
of the existence of the chattel mortgage and should not be permitted 
to question the irregularity of ite existence as thie right belonged 
to the corporation. Darst v. Gale, et al, 83 Ill. 136; Magerstedt v. 
175 Ili. App. 407. The evidence 
bears out the position of the trial court in that the defendants had 





taken possession of the property although denying such in their 
anawer, Under the circumstances the peseession of the defendants 

was tortious. fhe trial court found ond we find no reason to 
question ite finding that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession 
of the property under his chattel mortgage and, upon failure te 
recover same, was entitled to dameges for its conversion. 

The question ss to whether or not the Metropelitan Finanee 
Corporation was in possession of the property was « question of fact 
for the court. The cause was tried without a jury and every intend- 
m@nt will be indulged in fever of the finding of the trial court. 

Adamaitis, who is the Adams of the Adams & Ragan Manufact- 
uring Jompany, testified that the property covered by plaintiff's 
mortgsge was the property of the corporation, even though he, hime 
self, executed + subsequent chattel mortgage to the Metropolitan 
Finance Corporation, 

On@ Bloom, called as 2 witness for the defendants, testified 
thet he went into possession of the premises in which the property 
is leeated on or ebout Gotober 23, 1936, presumably on behalf of 
the 4etropolitan Finance Corporation. Counsel for defendants admit 
that the “etropoliten Gredit & Discount Corporation was «a successor 
te the defendant, Metropolitan Finance Corporation and there was 


evidence in the record sufficient to bee# out this finding. 


odt ¢add cottqavees od? ao wane aoidaroqgroo wit —8 of botutad ane 
atew)  fove ae Biel bas — ont wd batoours eacattos bas etea 
epbelwond bad etnxbasteb od? tolteroqzas att to’ stom edt ,tont at 
botdinuxeq ef tom bivode baa ou⸗sn non fottsdie odd te opaeteixe edt to 
hegaoled fiytt ald? es soqetnine ati te Ytinelugenst ont no iteawp ot 
v dhataronah tl .LfT 88 ie te ,oded ov dead eorteneqres odd ot 

somabive Shc TQ aaah raflt iF wiaeeeid To Aue Lamotte texts 


pad efavbosteb edt ted? ag foun iokxd ad? te soktiaed ed? tuo ated 
tied? ai down goiyoeh dguedtie yiusgetg edt 20 noheeoanog atded— 


ateckasioh eid to setvetageg ad? eenastemwotsg Oct cebay Ravvaa 


ot aoaese of badt ow bee bauyet taver dadrd of. omuod ot: oe: 
piaeoneog st ot hoititne saw Thitatele ad? tede yalbast ats — 
of atwltat nocw .bae. ogeytton, Lostede abd rob yusgoxa ad? te 
‘ stederovaco sti tot asgemeb of Aeleitae gay qemen, cm 209% 
mente asthiqqextek ott tom go. tedtedy of on mohtuaup. OfP. 00. 








teat to aoltvesp 2 acw yirueqenq add to modarersag at, oon aotvoraatad 


whestnt yreve bas yrut o tundtiw beltd gew soueo of?  .tauee odd aot 
ofryoo Lelet add? to gaibait ed¢ to sovet ai hagivbal od, Lidw, dom 

“fontutiel aege! & enaht ede to saabs edt of ose yoddtiemaba 
) gttiitadels yd beweves yrreqens edt dai? bedtitest ,yasqeod gabmy 
oid ,of dywvon? mere ,naitereqroe ed¢ to yeveqenq efy sew epaygenom 
Astiiogexses edt oF egagirem dattasis saenpoedne # betupexe ,tiee 
—R i nl oe | shottenouxed ponmadt 

holitiseos ,vtaebaoted sdt rot aeoutio # as Sollee ,.moold nO, 
Ytxoqety ed? doidwe oi eeadmety ot? to aedessneoq ofmi gaww of toad 
to tisdesd ao Yidouseotq .OtRS .cS cedetod suede, 16, m0 botaoot wk 
tiubs efanbasteb tot Leseyod .modtetoqzed enmanit antiiegorte’ ent 
tosesotun & sem aoitsrogsol duvogelG 4 dhhex0 metiieqotaas edt tadt 
exw exodd bas ooltoxoqzod Gengnst netiioqerto .taahaeteh adt ot 
sarthal? Bid? tue teed oF sunleitius rover edt ai sonsbive 








Osborne testified that he had purchased this machinery, 
evidently under the sale by the defendent Metropolitan Pinenee 
Sorporstion. 

The trial court suw the witnesses, heard the testimony and 
was in « better position to pass upon the evidence than is this court, 

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment of the trial 
court and therefore the judgment of the Municipal Court is offirmed. 


JUDGMENT AFFIRWED, 


HEBEL AND HALL, JJ, COHOUR, 


SoU $y ard 


Bh as 
Fo NS He Oe 


a ama ae. * — —— 








—* * ttt 
⸗ i i va é 
36236 ae ff * 
4 Fd oe. a — 
CRANE do., a corporstion, A seven ya — 
of , — 
Appellant, ¢ “ * * 
— MUNICIPAL GOURT f 
Ve ⸗ 
FRARK 8. HAGOLUND, OF CHICAGO. 7 
T 
Appeilee. 2 7 0 ae oA © 6 3 1 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
WR. PRESIOING JUSTICE WILSON OELIVEAED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

This was an action of the fourth clase in tort te recover 
for property damage to plaintiff's Chevrolet coupe amounting to 
$140.73. The cause was submitted to the court without « jury, 
resulting in «a finding in favor of the defendant and judgment wae 
entered upon the finding. 

Pisintiff was traveling in a southwesterly direction on 
Ogden avenue approaching Maple avenge, an intersecting highway, about 
1 P. &. on April 7, 1930. Defendant eas driving in — northeesterly 
direotion on the same highway and at the intersection of Ogden and 
Maple avenues he made « left hand turn in front of plaintiff's 
approaching car. Piaintiff claims that the ear of the defendant 
started te cress sharply and quickly end that the accident was 
Caused by defendant's negligence. Defendant claims that when he 
started to turn olaintiff's ear was about 150 feet away and thet he, 
the defendant, wae in the exercise of due care and that piaintiff 
was guilty of negligence. 

The evidence was conflicting. The court saw and heard the 
witnesses and we will not reverse the judgment on the facts uniess 
this court is able to say that the finding of the trial court is 
monifestiy ageinst the weight of the evidence, This we are unable 
to do 


\ an aa Waa | HobdaoqroD w 4.00 ahaso 
W Dhan ze ronda tind ogy es ataatveqeé sa. gcd 
*, mgoo “IASI OLWUR 
* Ee 6 Ser gear 
oradend oe (ORR a ARE 
Sk 8 whys T 0 * J— re ea 
© SSCL {dO eM bOLIT molwtgo! 6 <6) Ses ew cy em we 
-THUOO BVT YO ROTA SMP GRVAVEI WORLER BOLVRUY GRALIAENT LAM coco 
sevens ot trot at canto drtwot edt? Yo noltoe aa eew aid? : 


ot prltavons egies Telorveds e'ttitelela of egamed — we 





svewl # duottiw Seve ont of bettindun saw cause Od? .8T.OM 


ase teamghut bas tashaoteb edt? to tevak ai gebsakt 2 ma gultigoot 


ao solfoetib ylroteewtives « at gailevat? saw TIigalel? 
tuode ,Yawigid guivesetetal ae ,tmteva elysk yainoretgas Sneve nokgo 
Yieetecedinen at yakvixh sew tuabanted .080L 7 Léeqa no ot otf 
hae geBgO te avidoserstni edt fe bas yowdgid eaea edt mo delteonhs 
e'ttituieds te ¢aect al mist baad ¢2eL « ebom ed geumere oiqall 
danbasteh od? to ta0 of? ted? amialo Thitetels .2a0 gabdosongas 


aev teohioes: edd det? Sane yldodup bae ylqrede eeote of Sodtate — 


ed mode todd enisl® gaebaotet eonegligads attushavteb yd beageo 
qed ¢odt bas yeur teot O21 tvede eaw tam eT tigniaig aut of betente 
tiitatela ted? bas ovad avd bo eelorexo eff ai saw ,tnebesiek edt 
ssoregiigen to yeliny enw 

adit Breed bee aan teyoo fT sgntteditmes exe eomsbive edt 


seein etost ed? mo teomybut edt eovewer tom LLiw ow Bas ceneantiy 


ei tavoe Letud sdt to galofadt ole ded yaw oF olde sl J eidd 
eldsny ota ew aid? ssonsbive edt Yo tyker eit tantegs vitnetinen 
ert 





ge ee ee Ee ee 







= ~~ es — a Oa ? ee rn 
ie i A at — an as — 


While the statute gives the right of way to motor 
vehicles approaching from the opposite direction over those attempt~ 
ing to make a turn at intersecting highways, nevertheless, we 
assume that the court was familiar with this statute ond hed it 
in mind et the time it asde ite finding. 

There being no reason for disturbing the finding and 
judgment of the trial court, it is therefore ordered that the 
judgment of the Municipal Court be and it hereby is affirmed. 


JUDGHENT APYIRMED, 


HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR. 










a, 


* Sak — 
ee * id 
* — 





Praha ———— 





fpr * — ie 
Rah ee Peele Se ae 











by y ery 
€s5 — 4 4 
a 
é eo ition sew We sabe 
eee ty yak enw PONS EEE ase ca ™ uh 
av » 
—— er 
nt S02 BO —— 
a ea * * ay? 
. 4 Me a] 
& z 





wey eff? pemothiee oat % 








36245 ⸗ 


Ls fn 
GLIFFORD J. BATES, * ) APPEAL FROM f eng 
F Fi 
(Plaintiff) Appeliee, é f 
CLARGUIT COURT, é 
Ve 
COUNTY OF COOK, GOOK COUNTY. * 
Orn TT A... 2 o 
(Defendant) Appellant. fs & 0 L. A. O 3 1 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
WR. PRESIDING JUGSTIOR WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION GF THE COURT, 

This was an action in assuapsit by the plaintiff to recover 
salary claimed to be due him while acting as an assistant state's 
attorney from July lst, 1924 to December ist, 1924, snd April 15, 
‘1825 to December 16, 1925. The original aetion was in eandamis but 
was amended to susumpsit by leave of court. A summons issued agsinst 
Anton J. Setmak, President of the Soard of County Commissioners 
ef Cook Jounty. A demurrer to the original mandemus proceeding was 
filed by the County of Gook, a municipal cerpeoration, and Anton J. 
Cermak, fresident of the Soard of County Sommissioners, by their 
attorneys. To the declaration in assumpsit subsequently filed, the 
defendant filed first a plen of nonassumpsit and second thet the 
action had not accrued at any time within five years next preceeding 
the commencement of the action. The last services claimed to have 
been performed by plaintiff were December 16, 1925. This action 
was Gommenced June &, 1932. No point is made as to the statute of 
limitstions piesded by the defendants, and, consecuentiy, will not 
be considered. 

Evidence was heard by the trial court s2 to the services 
performed by the pleintiff as an assistant state's attorney during 
the time that plaintiff elaims he verformed services for the state's 
attorney of Cook County and there is evidence pro and con as to 
whether or not he continued to work for the state's attorney without 
pay on the promise that he would be txken care of out of the next 





X \ anna 

a, Mie OY A in * years 9 yh 
— ———— — 

aa ere ruan so i i a et gna 

7 : * Beha. 

LYYEUO BOON i “ioe ‘to THOS 


“rea AL OVS Vonabantoay®* 


; (eel “8 ysl beLit aointg® ORO OS Bee gies 





.28U00 aut YO HOIWIGO Bat aaxaviaaa nondtt wortelt ourdrt — 
— of tiivataig edt wd tisquvess at moltos as cow afte © °° °8°% 
e'etste taateleer az as patties eilde mid eub od of bemiaio yrales 

eit Lhtgh baw ,bSOL tel codmeosti of M8CL ytel YLvt mort yorrtotts 
ted esmebaee at ew totes Lanigize eT 22008L <i tedawoot of a86r 
tentege bowced anomeve A .tanos to eveel ‘we tiequuces ot bebaoms ean 
 grenoisaimmed ytaue0 to braot edt to taebieerd ,aembed .b moda 

eew gathsecotg eumebaam Inckgize ed? of torzamed & -ytawed tood te 
ot aoted Bae ,noltetogroo Ieqioiaums « ,ae09 to yinwed ode yd belt 
tied? qd ,etanoieaimmod yaw te Breet ed? to *aebicott Aauno 
edt ,defit yltasupsedye eagetenan a2 noltereioed odt of .eysatotts 
edt ¢:d¢t bmooee ban ¢heanucaanes to selq s gerd? beitt tasbasteb 
galbseseny ¢xen etesy evlt aidtie emit yae ts bewrooe ton bad molten 
eved ot bomieie eeoivres fat edt .neitee ed? to tremeonemmen edt 
noltes ald? ,88@i ,8L tedmeoed erew Tiisaiaic. wi beanotreq aeed 

te efutetea adt of aa ohem ai gatoq of .S86GL ,8 eavt beoneneod sav 
ton Lite <Citasdoennes shae ,etasbaeteb edt yd bebesiq. anoitetiwks 
-boxebienoo ad 
aecivtse ad? of se give laixt edt yi breed caw eonebiva 

gaitud yassotts a'etste taetelees an on TYétatalg od? yd bento? tog 
sto¢ete sdf rot ascivree hemrotzeg od emialo ttitatelg tedd omit ed? 
ot sn noe base erq sonebive ef ered? Bae ytawod Aood to yerretts 
twodtiw yeuredte a'etote edé xot stow of bounttace od fom to tedtode 
txen ent te tuo te exno mode? od Bivow od tect eainote odt a0 You 


— 





2 
budget passed by the County Hoard. fhe judgsuent in the case runs 
against "The Board of Commissioners of Cook Gounty.” There is 
nothing in the evidence upon which a judgment sgsinst the members 
of the Board of County Commissioners, as seubers, or the Soard of 
County Commissioners as 2 body could be predicated, If a judgment 
should be obtained by the plaintiff for services Claimed te have 
been rendered, it should be against "Cock Gounty". Paragraph 22 
ef Counties Act, Gahill's Illinois kevised Statutes, provides that 
@ounties “shall be a body politic and corporate, by the name and 
style of "The county of _.s_»*® =and by thet name may sue end 
be sued * * *," The liability, if any, in this esse was against 
the Sounty of Cook. 
336 Ill. 466. 
Plaintiff moved for leave to file cross error in this 





@ourt and this lesve ws granted and cross error filed. This cross 
error is supported by an affidavit of plaintiff to the effeot 
that “The judgment ss entered by the Clerk does not conform to the 
judguent ss rendered by the court, in that as entered it purports to 
be against the bosrd of couwnissionere of Cook County, whereas the 
judgment was in fsot rendered against the defendant The County of 
Gook." The judguent before us is sgainst the Board of Commissioners 
of Cock County end iaports verity. It onan not be attacked in this 
court by an affidevit, The fact that Gook County may have entered an 
appearance and became a party to the proceeding does not siter the 
fact that the judguwent is against the Board of Commissioners and 
this judgment oan not be affirmed by this court because there is 
no evidence in the reeord helding that body liable, 

For the reasons stated in this opinion the juéguent of 
the Gircuit Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new 


triel. 
JUDGMEKRT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED, 


etre Gano od? ai daomyhet at?  .beeatl ytavod ed? qd horesq togbud 
at ered? *.y#aued dood te sremotesines? to buect eat tentage 
eredmen odd teniege tateydet « doldy scams eonshive edt ak yoidton 
ta bieot edt mo ,etedeen os ,erenotesimse® yeaved te baced edt to 
insamhut « x sbotesibere og Biveo yood « am exsaedentamed yeasod 
ovad et. Soatate, seolveee,.x9t thitniel, sdf yi hentetde ed bivode 
BS dquxgexes  .*yéawo0 aogh" tantoge od Biveda ts ybenebgex wood 

| tadt epbtyong yeetutad® boptyor efont iil efLLtdad 204 eettawod te 
— bere ouna oa⸗ xe sStexeqron Sas aitilog wed » ad tiade" astserea 
bas Soe Yam Smam Tadd YC Dae eins 0 NRRMOR OAT? ⁊ꝛ LYeE 
_Fentage Saw enep nade at. ws tL aNthLideks * Pe Me bee oe 









| sda aa torte eaoxre ne ot + event, sa, ———— te 
enero etd? sbaltt tote agore tne botnet gem pwned mide ng wank 
| “dpette ade ot tridntese * yenauze as y@ hetweceum ei roxte 
ode o stotnee fon wooh AxelO edt xe herosne. ee teronghyt edt? gate 
ot ed roe sins ah boretas bs ted? ak atxuop eit yi begehuey ee sromphut: 
edt eooxede _a¥taw90 food Yo stotptppianen, Pe AS AOE, Os, akin e: al 
‘Yo Yinwep, od? tusbaotoh eff, Pankeye Aomahawn. ton aL mum, — 
aroae te ntanot Io bused od? tantngs ef, ey oxoted sromphus, ed? , MXood: 
sid? si beaongie ad tos eo $, .ytinev eisogmd baw ytawe>.zeo® to. 
ste boretme ovat Yee ytaved aoe ted foot aff ,tivabltte as. Ve tea 
ota tegies gon eeeb gitbessorg edt of Yiise 4 ameoed hue. eoneaeqas 
hae gtesofeginmed te brgot edt tunings sf dnemydug eff. dadt test 
#. orodt seynoed trv9o gid? yl bowtstia od fos neg. ith acti — 
ee sbidetl hed tadd gathiod Brower. sit st.eomebive om, i 
Yo tuomybut ot sotmiao, Aidt ab Dotare asses edd 40%. 0.00). : 
wen = tot cebanwen at sauro eit dae deaysves at suo, — 
AACR GRUAD di Crea EE reauouut rast setoene · 


— tb dad ama 3 tie a ‘ 




















y f 
36255 — 


WAR MOPHILLIPS, f 
Plaintiff - appellee, ~~ 





SUPERIOR COURT, 


Ve 
ARMOUR & COMPANY, a corporation, COOK COUNTY. 
oy S27 Kr 7 wi . 
Defendant = Appeliant. 270 L.A. 6 3 PA 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
MR. PRESIOING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPI NLON OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff? brought her action to recever for personal 
injuries sustained by reason of a collision between » exr in which 
she was riding as & passenger and » truck of the defendant. The 
accident happened in the forenoon of August 2, 1930, at the inter- 
section of 80th and Honore streets, two intersecting streets in the 
city of Chicago. The jury returned «a verdict in fevor of the plaintiff 
for $3,500 and judgment was entered on the verdict and from this 
judgment en appeal was taken to this court. 

From the facts it appears that the ear in which pleintiff 
was riding was a Ford sedan traveling north on Honore street. The 
truck of the defendant wns traveling west on 80th street. 

fhe driver of the Ford car testified that when he was within 
25 feet of 80th street he locked to the right and noticed the truck 
Coming and that it appesred to be 100 to 125 feet away; that at the 
thme the Ford was traveling about 15 or 18 miles an hourj thet when 
he wes about on the intersection of the two streets, the truck 
appesred to be about 20 feet away; that as he proceeded on his way 
the truck hit the Ford, which he wes driving, sbout the mid-section. 

The driver of the truck testified that as he approached 
Honore street he stopped about 16 feet east of the exst curb and 
leoked to the left and to the right and could see no traffic coming 
north; thet the truck again started and was proceeding at the rate 
of about 10 or 12 miles on hour when he, the driver of the truck, 


’ pe \ — 
— xen a nea 


4% ye Fane “ —— 





waged v/J — 
* was * hy 5 Gh ge Sees J Bes es 8 é —— 
_ RPMS. R08 stoktaregree @ .TAATHOD & a 


Gee ee at 


889 A.L.O ao | _ stainkleqas > tagdaeted. 
 «BSOL QS ysM Bell? soiaigd — — 

»THUCD SHY FO. aaro au ganar zaag ROBIIA —E — ED— a 
isxeeteq to tevever of aoiten sod thguerd Btisntald * 
doidw st ga0 5 neovted solerileos 2 %o mowaen YS hentatews se tsa 
ed? .tashaeteh ed? te doust.s bar mreyaresos 8 #6 gatbit, say, aie 
~zatat adt te ,OUGL 48 taugua to scomeneh edt ad bensqasd, mabiong 
_ ont ae ateotde gaddoenuatai eet ,eserte sxomeR fan A208 Te ao ttose xe 
‘hénielq eft te sors? mi Solbrow a hernirger ‘emmy ac? sogankad Yo yete 
eidt sont dae sosbuav nth. am Samntee, oe Anompder, te 008 0) vat 
——— paws Ah tee. 4 ne Leagge. ath geting edt. Pot eit 

adt .toatte evencll ao d#son gatlevest anbes Proll e sew gatbt 
| sfoente d$08, no, teow, gadleveatt new, dnahasteb ods * et 

aidétte een od asdu Sadt beliigees 129, beet eft to xevieh eft 

fourt edd. beottes Sas, tiga edt of heslogs af toorta (1908 0, 4 jek 2 
edt to dedd pyYowe, test BBL of OOL od ot Donengup #4 daft bas gods dng 
ete tedt ved so, eeiiw GL to OL tuade yallever? aou bred ext amet 
| Assad. ads yateonte owt edt Yo sostocsxatas edt me tuods. enw os 
yom aid co bebpenor: ed ae dadt jYsue seek OF tuode od of boxsoqy 
notioenmhkn ott toda .yateieh now of dodde gbrol edt ghd dour, oi 
kedocotgan ed oe tadt bedtitest Aownd add %q xvewdnh oft — 
bas dtyo tere, edt to deme goat. AL duodn becsote. sd teats exomel 


























gainen e£%text on see bingo Das tate ot * ‘aad at — * ot bexook 


oar 


2 
saw the Ford automobile about 3 feet away from him; that he applied 
the brakes and that the truck stopped within 2 feet. 

Plaintiff testified that she was riding in the front seat 
on the right hand side of the driver, and as the Ford approached 
80th street it was going about 15 miles an hour ond thet another 
oar passed the Ford going in the seme direction, 20 or 30 feet south 
of the intersection; that at this point she looked east on 80th 
street and saw a truck approsehing which appeared to be 75 feet 
away. As a result of the coliision she was rendered unconscicus; 
that after the accident she was taken to the Auburn Park Hospital, 
where she resmined for 3 days with ice bags on her head, and from 
there she was taken to her home. 

The attending physician testified that plaintiff hed sue- 
tained a skull fracture extending from the lower sortion of the 
temporel bone down into the base of the heed and upwards for sbout 
four inches and then divided into a "Y¥" shaped fracture; that he 
treated Wer for approximately 34 or 4 months end that she complained 
of headaches and dizziness and wes not cleer in her reasoning or 
thinking. 

Defendant claims that, under the statute, the truck had 
the right of my and thet the plaintiff, although = passenger, 
should have seen the approaching truck and should have warned the 
driver of the Ford car. 

The court, on behalf of the defeninnt, instructed the jury 
to the effect that motor vehicles traveiing upon public highways 
shall give the right of way to vehicles approaching slong inter- 
secting highways from the right. By this instruction the jury was 
fully apprised of the right of the defendent under the Motor Lew 
ef this state. While the stetute gives the right of way under such 
ciroumsteances to vehicles svproaching slong intersecting highways 
from the right, over those approaching from the left, it does not, 


& * 
beliqus ed ted? jeid mos? yews toot G tuode siidonotua breil edt mae 
fest & aidéeiy beqqote dauxd ott sada. bas sedend oxi 

ieee taott et? af geibic id ade tadt beititeet thitelels 
bedongxaca Snot odd ee inn etovizh afd Yo ships Das tdgat ade. a0 
se itoas fads bap xwod Ro eoite EL fuss yaton wom #4 deere daos 
fives teat po wo og oi tearsb oe ode ak gtioy Brot edt beraag tH0 
_ £808 we “teas — one tatog — ts dedt jooitoserstai edt to 
: teak lll sd ot boiseqgs soide aakdoscrgqa downs & wee, bas seorte 

| “javoteazooay hotehaer ssw ode sotgtiion off to siuges 





ao? bas —* red ag — oot ithe — * Gdianet ede erga 
__ peated tod oF agaist * ois oion⸗ 
— bad —D tone bostitant: aaoteysg, seibeeete. $48. 2. tty a 
| On Fe mekerog eaeet ody Mott gadhaotxe gant? Luke # beaist : 
iweda x0 sizewqy has beet ed? te. end. ast ofan * Letogn 

ed ted? jetutostt heqeds °F" « oca⸗ pebivsd asat bar eedend ‘tot 
honiciqngs ade tad? bao edemon 6 1068 Aigtanitenggs tot xl Begaent 
To galsoases nod ad ꝛ as to tom TA RT Fe 

| bast sourt one aetutete ont — — — tnabasteg, rh aR 
_stegnseeay ® figuedtte J—— fag dt —J bay Yow to te ae ae 

edt beatae evad Bluoda ban toyed an us⸗oria Od? meen qvad bivede 
tun oe Biot edt to sevigh 
wrest ode beveurtant ,andnaren oue te Mades RO atmo, mt * se <A 
_Syewtaid oh Lecsvey nog sabiovert eelvider — todt teette edt ot 
road yatota gatdosorage seinider, oF yam * edt aves Liade 
ssw ytut odd sostourtant atdt a sgt ods most eynwdald Sette 
wal codex edt tehaw trabagtab ox to tetges edt 2o bestzgae Yiet 
aous rade⸗ A ad te ttadx ods sovly atutete edt ohn on af s eldd to 
—J qnitoooratat grote aakdonorsae soloider of 999 n 
«ton eeob ot 00k de woe arideoneee cond sve tte ott ment 




















oft 















3 
as a matter of law, give the driver ef such « vehicle the right 
to proceed regerdiess of the rights of others who have already 
reached the street intersection. Saigon v. Nilson, 227 Ill. App. 
286; Heidler Cg. v. Wilson & Bennett Co., 243 lil, Appe 89. 

It was still a question of fact for the jury, under all 
the circuastances, as to whether or not the driver of the defendant's 
truck was guilty of negiigence in the operation of the truek regard- 
less of the statutory rights conferred upon him under the section 
of the Motor Vehicle Act to which we have already referred, 

Oomplaint is made that the court erred in giving plaintiff's 
instruction number 5 This instruction authorised the jury te 
consider future pain or suffering on behalf of the pleintiff in 
arriving st the amount of damages, if any, sustained by her. The 
instruction is not subject to the criticiam made, There was some 
evidence thet she would continue to suffer from headaches, and the 
instruction itself limited the considerstion of the jury to such 
future suffering and loss of hesith, if any. 

The injury was a severe one and we de not consider the 
verdiot ¢xcessive, 

Yor the reasons steted in this opinion the judgment 


of the Superior Court is affirmed, 
JUDGHENT APFIEMED. 


HEBEL AND WALL, J.J, GONCUR, 


tigie edt elofder « dove ‘to cevich fe evig ywal to cette ® en 
ybooris evel ow evadio to ediyix SH to eueltteger bowser, of 

‘Sqqa itr tee woetee wy aaus smostaverctat sents edt doacaeꝛ 
"88 sag LET O88 , oh es av ae vee 

ile tebeu overt ‘ad? tot tazt ‘to inn Ltd: « Lite ean ot ret 
elidahaeted ady lo arith ed? tom to rodtotw of aa (evometemerte J 
ebuenet fours bid to notséeégo O49 di doddghigéa Yo Yeting ‘aw steute 
—“ cohen wid moqu berretacs ebdgix ‘Crotvtete ef? T6 ened 
 ~heexeton ySootia ovad aw dtide of #04 oloided cated 9 
— ꝰ—— 
ot Ytuy Odd bositedtun wottonttend ent? 68 aedamns sith 
gk Vibtadelg edt Yo Rated an yadeeY tun xo mayor -mebiesas 
‘pat sed wl Bomicdaue (yne th laogeiekh to omboam edd te —R 8 
seoe caw ovedt ein aetOLbtro edt OF SoatGuw gon of KoLdowmteat — 
od? dav osdostived mort “erkwe 02 euntenoe buon enn tees sousbive : 
dose oF ™ ont to Kottoxebiecas sit besiesl Mowtt aoktourtunt 

: > twa —— — ⏑—,———— 
‘od? tebienoo tow Ob bw hax had oroved wee eu ted BHT: aed he 
enema 
— ote — eidt at Setete eneaner edt 10% cae 
. Sib dead) — 


















—8 au 
8686 eat ery ey Fo 1. * J a ft 
mes utd ws J hive ae 
m MAD ye cul CHAS a Pay) ii eek. Bua eho og py {wa tne oy 


i A a 2 ae does ARN Ups eh het, 
i } pip ll i a 





‘ » , r ‘ae ' a 
. Air Sate tire ts Pea hs arin bet ga ik AY ae * * J— J an 4 ! 
. ‘ j b oh , ; 


ewer thf sie oeereste i eae aa, nae Bee at ARE SE er ga oe none oy route 


feos aati ae A ae eee. ae ead nS sc : 
— Bi SN SPN Bian Weis Ch spare. tind ol 
* f. eke 







a AB mou Jf. 
f * ⸗ 
ud SUPERIOR OQMRT, 


36268 
HANNAH SHELSRED, 
Plaintiff - Appellee 





Leh" 4 al h 
f 


Ve 


J 


7 Ping 
NATIONAL TEA 00., » Corporation, cook couwry, / 
Defendant - Appeliant y T A * 
7 2 i O tele 6 3 9 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
UR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THR COURT. 


Plaintiff recovered a judgment in the Superior Court for 
$3500.00 upon a verdiet of the jury for personal injuries sustained 
by reason of an accident occurring upon the premises of the defendant, 
The declaration consisted of one count and charged that on December 
84, 1929, plaintiff entered the store of the defendant for the 
purpose of purchasing groceries and thet it became the duty of the 
defendant, by its servants, to keep the premises in « safe condition, 
but that the defendant failed to observe this duty and instesd care- 
lessly and negligently permitted the floor of the store to be and 
become and remain wet, icy and alippery and thet, as a result 
thereof, pisintiff slipped and fell, 

The fects in the case are not complicated nor are they 
materially controverted as to the manner of the happening of the 
aeoident. Plsintiff was driven by her husband to the store of the 
defendant sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 o'clock in the evening. 

It was cold and snowing. She alighted from the onr and went into 
the store where there were perhaps 10 or 12 customers and sourchased 
some supplies for supper. The plaintiff testified thet the floor 

of the store was wet and there was snow and ice inside the door 
where pe@ple had come in and one Zeiler, an employee of the defendant 
and sanager of the store, testified that he observed customers 
tracking snow into the premises and that he mopped it up and took 
some corrugated cardboard and placed it upon the floor of the store 
near the door to prevent people from falling and slipping. 





“ge ) #018 2408 





\ ernie ooo, fe ee — 55 a (200 aa “AOR 
’ : ee 
eed A.T Q 1S ee an ee ‘ 


SSCL dS ye beLit noiaiqd 


‘THI00 ANT YO WOTRIGO 4RY GuSuVIAEG BoBZte soTteus eNTeteade® Jaw” at ; 


_pvtgk Prwe0 nedrequO ede Gt tasmghyt 4 Bereveoor Pridatsia  ” ite 


boaiecewe sateuiat Lanoetsq to etvt add Yo ‘jotbrey 's —2 a 


fasbaeteh adt Yo weeiterq ed? meas 





) tepives ae To moanet we 

 eadwaeed go tede hegieds bax tav0e ato to bototanos soldaessoad ous i 
edt xot tusbasted edt te ered ott Sevetns Itivadts. 

edt Yo Yuh od? omeoed #2 tedt bee aedvowdny qatar 









,witiones sine « wi ssaiworg ott qeed oF — ak eu ees 


-stae Lestent tae ytub ated evxoede oF bolin® dex 
— — sie ——— 









sgakaove edt at doale'e 08:6 bar 0038 anowted —9 Tt bo 
otni tase. bre tao oft meat hostdgife sdf eantwous ban bios ewe ce 


besavonum has avometuve SL a OL amn · i trod erat · 


soolt odd godt boltidest Wtialslg edt~ 





cosh 060 tbinna oot Sad ied nia uidk dik tek tee ee ee 
Sasbasteb edt to soyolqne ma ,teliet ono han at amoo ded efqoeq oxedu 
atenotevo bevtesde od ted? bestitast orot⸗ out? Yo roganen as — 


toot dae au tt beynem od pads bat eoutaerq ont efmt wone gatdoard 
erols ode to toolt edt moqu tf doonig bes brsedheco hevteyutxeo eae vt a 
* — ; 

—sgakegtia bas — wort _— dover oe — hands . 








2 = Per a rr ae ae a eK i 


Plaintiff testified that after she had made her purchases 
and started to leave she stepped on one of these pieces of corru- 
gated cardboard and that it siipped from under her end she fell and 
injured her knee; that she was taken home and thet night she was 
attended by « friend who was a trained nurme and that her right knee 
pained her severely; that afterwards she saw a physician who told her 
to go to bed and keep off of the limb and he put « splint on her leg 
which remained on for more than two weeks; that she saw another 
physician for over a period of nine weeks but that her leg was no 
better, and wes swollen at the knee; thet she has been unable since 
that time to do her house work and got around the house by moving 
from chair to table and supporting herself ageinst the walle of 
her home; thet her knee was weak and would lock on her and that she 
had to walk with crutches. 

The physician testified that upon an examination ef the 
Plaintiff he found that she had a loose cartilage in the knee joint; 
that thie is « gristly part that covers the bone end prevents friction; 
that there is a synovinl fluid between the two surfaces that keeps 
the joint lubricated and that when this eartilage beeomes bruised as 
the result of an injury it will bresk off and move about from place 
to place in the joint. If this cartilage slips in between the joint 
it looks and the knee cannot be used; thet this causes an inflammatory 
condition and the injury is permanent in its nature; that it would 
require an operation to remove the broken cartilage from the joint 
of the knee. 

Considerable space is devoted by counsel for the defendent 
to the proposition that the owner of premises is liable only for 
injuries occasioned by the unasfe condition ef the premises, if such 
condition were known to him, There ia no force in this argument 
because of the fact that the defendant knew of the condition of the 
floor and attempted to remove the danger by placing corrugated 
cardboard upon the floor. 


asvasionu rod shan hed ede noite tad? beststast latert ae 
-wenbs to ee0et7 Seedt Be eno co —— ada evees of betiste bate 
fax fist ete bos tof tobaw most Reagile ¢f ads —— innodbene betas 
aow ode tigia teds Sma onod meaet ane oan sede, eon rout besuhiat 
24 digit tad tad? baa parua baciont « esx oe hastat » W ohne te 
sod Biet ody aateleyiq a wow oda ebrortatic tect jyloneres ae! benkng 
ok x04 mo dnblge 0, fy of Ate Guts ext 20 Yo Goes han bod of on of 
weddons wae ode tad? {ateew ov? a? exon sot ae bectsuon dotte 
on gee eel wed tat tad edeoy onda to botvey # ave toh nakoz 
ooaie 9idanu ansd ead ode ted? joond odd fx weliows pen has ted ted 
gatvon ys sexed eit huvors top ben Axon eeuod 0d ob of ontt dad 

to eiinw edt dealege tiseted gaddueqque fas older ot thado sant 

tie dads bas red m9 deol Aluow Bae dagu aoe gous vod sade ‘joned ted 

| * —DVVD—— Mitty Aor of bad 
edt 29 aetteniaass se soge tase bestigeos. As Ae ——— : 
joel osm odt at egaltexs enol ¢ bed ede tests ao? — 
foitoixt a¢aeverg bae anod edt eveyoo tadt sung “uteim a8 * a pete 4 
eqeed todd asostiue ont 9d? avaeted biult Latvouye « of xed? tadt 3 
as heeled eamooed ogaltszan ald? asdy todd han Detaobadus tatot a 
eneig wort sueda oven bas No Aaend Lite 42 weutat na Yo tuner veer x ott 
intet at anewted at eqtie egatteseo atte 21 -tatol, ait ah venta of j 
Vioteumeltns as atnuso aldt ted? jbeeu eS sontae send fit Aan utnok #2 
bison $2 tadt jomtan att mi tonnannea ek wutat edt bas motttbaes 
tatot edt mort ageLttnao aedoxs of? evomes of nosterege an exiupor 


seem edt Yo 






























op tambasteb edd¢ tot deacyoo i beteveb at sonme 2 ¢ WT Blade date 
not yino edail ei evetmong to.reawe ont test seis tien 

tewe ti ,esetmeng 946 to noktibago eteeay ed? ye. Donotacao m 
tramvyrm aid? ot optct ea et orodt aid 62 orem sok?ibaoe 

se apstheah ie sheet anbanahin. thee sae 


— yadeata wi nega oat evoure of Detuansés Bes soot 





It is also insisted thet the evidence does not support the 
declaration in that the plaintiff did not slip because of the wet 
and icy condition of the floor, but because she stepped upon a piece 
of cardboard which was the proximate cause of the accident. with 
this contention we are unable to agree inasmuch as it appears to this 
court that the accident was caused by the wet and iey condition of 
the floor, aa charged in the declaration. The cardboard was placed 
upen the floor by the defendant because of this condition and the 
jury by its verdict found that the cardboard itself slipped from 
under the plaintiff beceuse of the condition of the floor, The judg- 
ment is not contrary to the manifest veight of the evidence. 

There was no reversible error in the giving of instructions 
2 and 3, nor do we consider that the verdict is excessive, 

Objection is made to some of the answers of the plaintiff, 
which were permitted to go into evidence, but we heve examined these 
and find thet they were not subject toe the objection raised in the 
briefs. 

Finding no reversible error in the trial of the cause 
and for the reasons atated in this opinion, the judgment of the 


Superior Court is affirmed. 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 


HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CouOUR. 





odd treqquve gon asoh epasbive ef? tadt botetaat oala at #1 
fom edt to Saupoed Gite fou bib tRitntala od? ted? mt modtoretos 
asta « oqu hoqgeta eda gaunoed tud 4x00? od? Ye sosttbaos yor bas 
agie “efaahtoon edd te oeuee etemixerg oft sow — axreoabnbᷣ * 
eid? oe sxeeqas #1 es doumeant ſaaxsa of eden 9x oy noktnstnoo aids 
‘ to pltibaee, ye! bas toy aM? W Doaues any teebsone et tact txv00 
| _Dennig sw Deagdbxso ost .notzexsioed ott at boyzarto an rool? edt 
ode ban mols ibage aids * veuados maehnorob oat ¥ x00? oa⸗ / soa 
: wont vequeis tisest besodbsn0 ora tas sawot tetbrov ate we . : 
—J oo adt to fnolstbaoe edt te onunosd —** oat xe 
__ s*onebive edt 2o syton seotinen odt of yrotéaoe § 
ene rowztast te gatvis ad? ad rerte eidtorever on enw oe 
svinesoxe ai tolbrey ed? teds sabtenot : 
(ttdtnteta ed? te avowane eft to amon “ om ok aottes ote +. . nad 
seed? henkmexs svat ew tut ,oonebive etn — oF ‘pettimren. see doide 


_ Ait m2 boater notteside alt ef seotdue fon otaw yodt tat fa Sas 


" ee ae, 











a j 


ity 


a — é cp < 7 4 




















ag ts reas pe Meat s 2 ah: ‘ak ‘RE © al Oeee F ae — 
⸗auan edt to detst edt gt conto Gidiexevet — — * as 
. Ade, 20, srematut ade apintgo ehAe at —— ROS 8% 





(URNA IYIA THENDUTL Wea eae springs Sigil ae 
Po) a, PE Ae ec le OES — ear ted — ae 


CIERRA TAS OS BE Pee faker. RE acta pert PR, BS oD — #8 


he ipo «|S iach ‘Ne Ba ? bs vt a eS — 


wets of Seater Be | kno 


PA — 





oi eax alt ee G 
Palg ae 
wetarne of etebdegned 
* * a a a ae ome er ee eee i 4 
MA BaP Liew rite wh Ped? 
° } . ‘ — 
Pada RE BT ONE Be SRE tN RR 
vs =f i wy ? — — 47. * * * 3 * * ia ¥ 
ise eh ee eel ee al pede skit ae oes 
* est, Ree ‘ 


PRANK CLAVELLI, as Administrator of 
the Estate of Lorado Olaveili, 
decensed, 





a 


Plaintiff - Appellee, SUPERLOR COURT f’ 
Ve 


COOK COUNTY, 
BOYDA DAIRY CO., a Corporation, 


Defendant - Appellant. 2 7 0 LAG 6 3 rod 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
UR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON OELIVESED THE CPINION OF THE COURT. 


Plaintiff, as administrater, recovered « judgment in the 
Superior Court of Cook County agsinst the defendant Meyda Dairy Go. 
because of the death of Lorado Clavelli, deceased, arising out of 
injuries sustained by him at the corner of Wrightwood and Laramie 
avenues, two intersecting streets in the City of Chicago. Plsintiff's 
intestate wae struck by » truck of the defendant company and received 
the injuries from which he died. 

From the facts it appears that the deceased was of the age 
of 12 years end ees acting as a2 patrol boy at the crossing. He hed 
a white belt around his waist and secross hie shovlder to indicate that 
he wae there for the purpose of looking after the children who were 
crossing the street to attend the school located near by. The accident 
occurred a few minutes before 9 o'clock on the morning of April 2, 
i931. Wrightwood avenue «t this point runs east and west and Laramie 
avenue runs north and south. 

One Janski, « witness on behalf of the pleintiff, testified 
that the deceased was standing near the northwest corner of Loramie 
and Wrightwood avenues, about 10 or 12 feet out into the street from 
the northwest corner, 2 little north of "rightwood near the crosswalk. 
This witness also testified that the truck of the defendant wes going 
east on Wrightwood and made «= short left turn at the corner of 
Wrightwood and Laramie avenues sbout 9 or 10 feet from the northwest 
corner; that he did not hear «a horn er signel and that the truck 
was traveling quite fast. | 


— 


‘J B * es ale 
News ee greg: Be ee 


#:. 


* —— J 20 — es 433 Ado 
MOR. de BGA | — — te séntel | 
5 at * J ———— 
© tae noTkatue — —— ———— — 
he ssmegnign tte 
Ls RTKYED..19g0, ae 


| “\aottexogred @ 9009 YAIAd AgTOR 
imeLioggh = taabastes 





eee MLOVS | 


seeL 198 vel beLit ao tutao by volt ene mony 
teud6 wet 40 Wee TiO at oanavLiag ROssIW sOrTEDe ouratess, — vent 


emt mk taoogbut Pi hetovessr stot ereiaémbs as sELGn bas 


UR eae Sd 


00 vided sbyot tasbaoteb ode tenkays yeavod 00d to — rol ; 
te suo gotetze sboasoneh ‘tilersi0 ebatod to as aob ada to oausoes 
eimeted bas boowsriy ie te Tantee one te ete w dontateue ; 


a 


etitaies4 vogooads to ete said ad atoorte gid tooeredat ong. ine 


* * 


mevrooen * Yeqnoe tanbastab ode to sours a Ww sourte eew vind a8 


bene od don wort votsotat ot 


gue ait * naw beaeooeb ‘ote 4 — ae edd mort 


. wy mat 
— saat 











ata rat 
bed of .galecets sdf te Yod Loxtay a te patton fey das, — 20 


tedt otandbat of svobivede ald aaotor bas tetow aid wonn Biod i otida s 
oxee ode mexbiido oft teate gitttooL ‘te bon mi oe rot sed! am ot 
inebioos eff .\yd teon botased loodoe edz anedte of goertea ode giiaeoro 
a& Lizqa to ‘yatetoe ode 0 ‘sigole'o @ axoted eetunta wet « i re 4 
elsered fae teow ban tase eaut faloy eid? ad meee | —X aa 









aa * 


Seititees ,ttitaiolg ode to tLeded ao seentix « — — Rie 
einered te tented teewddton odd teem galbaste saw Seessoob adt tedt 
moth geerte oft etal tuo feet Si to OL suede .weuneve Hoowddgit® bas 
etiswaseTto adt «nen DoowtdgitW to dévom OL¢e1L s .renteS taowditon eda 
aitog asw daebasteb oft Yo Foust od? tedd beLtitest owls zaentin atdT 
he wenreo add te mud Mel veode © obem kag Doowtdgti 20 tase 

— vit sort feet OL xo 8 tveds weuneva ehmexal bas Boowtigtxn : 
Sourt add a ee ee arene 


Pees he al Net | ue Ie ee 2 alee 











Sulak, another witness on behalf of plaintiff, testified 
thet the boy was © Little off the sidewalk and tro or three feet from 
the curb; thet he anew the truck make a left turn from Yrightwood, 
about three feet from the curb at the northwest corner, and that at 
the time it was traveling about 15 miles an hour. 

The declaration charged negligence in general terms and 
also a violation of the doteor Vehicle Act in that in turning the 
corner, the truck out across instead of taking the wide turn. 

Defendant contends that the judgment is contrary te the law 
and evidence, and that plaintiff failed to show negligence on the 
part of the defendant and also failed to show thet the deceased at 
and just prior to the time of the accident was in the exercise of due 
eare for his own aafety. 

The driver of the truok testified that as he turned the 
corner the boy ran out into the street, but this is not corroborated 
by any other witness in the case. 

There is evidence on behalf of the pisintiff showing a vio=- 
lation of the Hotor Vehicle Act in that the truck éut the corner 
instead of taking the wide turn as provided by the stetute. The 
evidenee in the record is sufficient te sustain the finding of 
negligence on the part of the defendant and the cuestion of due care 
on the part of the deceased was one of fact for the jury. Bohm v. 
Balton, 206 Ill. App. 374; City of Chicago v. MeOrudden, 92 I1l.App.357. 

The decensed at the time of the accident was of the age of 
13 years and the law requires a person of that age te use only that 
degree of oare which would ordinarily be expected of o person of his 
yeers, 

We find no error in the refusal of the court to give defend- 
ant's instruction number 18. This instruction contained an abstract 


boktiteet ,thigaiaig to tieded ae wepadiw codteds ae ee 
wort foet sexd? to owt bne dlawebte 9d¢ To eistil « wew — — 
shoow?rgis® sort ae #tel « otee doutt eit win od tade paren ott 

to sede bn. «keaneo teowdivon odd 3e dum ede mort eo0% oouds tuade 


tied a2 pelin GL tuods gatiovett enc tf ‘ttt odd 


“hele awrot Lavestsy ai sonegiiged Regrade adt¢aceteed edt 
odd giiaaist ae deve nl 9R Glotdey toteu edt to aottatety « oats 
etm eble edt eaited to bnetant esotes tue — ods: steaxee 
wel edt of Yrevénoo ot taemahirt odd taitt eheesikee: taaks 
“ed? Go onmtgilgen woe of belie? Urstabele Prd? bee’ psonsbive’ * 
te boageoeh eff tadd words of beliat exin has thakastem ade to txeq 





cub To seisrexe Pe vetieas suai hashes idlorSeipisocdiocrss.-v7 


era a ree 


‘edt Bewanwy ef ga Gadd bektideed dewrt adit Yo’ ‘revise eae POL 


haterodertes fom wf aid? gud ytonepar edd ont too cat you ext verkee 


 oene ad ai esentio tatte - w 


~olvy « gitwote Thisnieiy eft to tiaded me eemvbive et eeeir ) ~ “% 
F waroe ae eu adure edd Yo ak dod Bloitev tosolt otf! to moEtel 
‘edt .etudeta ade ye bebivore ea out ‘ably o¢? gahie? to Bestakh 
gakbatt 94% atetews 6¢ tuelolttwe bi brenee one mi — 
ovo oub te sotteoto edt hae tuatasteh Ot? to Here aie mo eosey: 
"yw gdoh .utut Sade tot fost Yo ome ase bowseeed off Yo Pray ole 











@8.qqh LT SC .Rebhyndoi .v gusosdd to yeko FONE wogd WELT BCH toe 


Yo aye edf to gow twebisen ott Yo Badd oe Be Boxesned BAT 
‘tad? tino ons oF oye tad? Yo floaxed x ‘setiuped wel itt ‘Bile ‘Wensy Ex 
eld to soerey 2 Yo —— — ———— ‘to setgeb 
f {eee ieee ibis 

~bastob evig of ftuoe odé to Euuvtor ott af sorte od Bat ey! ©" 
foottade an henietaco acttoustant ati? salle ioitogrteas 





is APRS Vh A Pee Bah od * 










a 
i 
4 
q 
; 
aati 7 n ; 
“Eh Xo 2 Fuge mia isin tocp — zt 


3 
proposition of law and was fully covered by defendant's given 


instruction number 16, 
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the Superior 


Court is affirmed, 
JUOGHENT AFFIRMED, 


REBEL AND HALL, JJ. ConoUR, 






ete — 4 * 


Mert eee? Beene ae Gee See ee ueskte edt the ° i ved 


ae staid aut. g RRceee tentang os Ye Com ate — 2 



















hee —— —— wath bd cpanel Cees ani * 

ot Sekai He Sethe El Om. eiesdey +a | 
atts Chae ae —R * — — a — 

wah EY af yrowlnos of Hoag wie eae qian > tei 

‘Qu Be tee woes oF Betin® Wrreekeiy ei ti 2 

gy pidewiad Gb Hoa? bame oF wee eben fee * 











rihlae a Py — tea 
abr b yoo Prhseaiedy wily wl —— ab —— ee 
Soneoo ait tub Mower ase tate ia sa wieiset Senet 
eet” (ekedets ort wide * 
z alae at Rete * J tua ay 
ore ‘gut te weltunes wed J— —E—— te wit 
¥ eee Sete Od de? gout te ead ‘ton Sree ata it 
Ma ora. Lit 82  ~eehier ey 6 ene | 

¥o dye edf Yo gow taatione oat Ve ait ect’ ye os 
toads gino seu at oye tedk Bo domesy 2 asia os 
‘ale $6 weeiey 2 To — ae! — ‘fet i 





7 ir ; 
Sou 
“enw Sy Pate — 
LEATI HARBUS, / APPEAL ROM rs ’ 
(Plaintiff) Appellee, a ———— 
SUPERICR COURT, “¥. 
Ve 
GHAPELL ICHh GREAM CO., a corperstion, 0008 counry. / 


(Defendant) Appeliant. 9 7 Ol. A. 6 3 3 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
UR. PHRSIDOING JUSTICE WILSON OBLIVENED THE OF IWION OF THE COURT. 

Plaintiff recovered 2 judgment for 225,000 in the Superior 
Court of Cook County beosuse of injuries sustsined by reason of a 
@Coliision between an automobile which plaintiff was driving end » truck 
belonging to the defendant. fhe question as to the amount of the 
judgnent is not raised and wili.not, therefore, be considered. 

Sut two points are reised by the defendant wron which the 
court is asked to reverse the judgment; First, that the evidence does 
not suprert the judgment, particularly in view of section 33 of An 
Aet in Relation to Motor vehicles, Gahili's Lilinois Revised Statutes, 
1929, Chapter 95a, paragraph 34; Seeond, the action of the trial court 
in limiting the ecrosa-examination of one of the witnesses testifying 
on behaif of the pisintiff. 

The section of the Motor Vehicle Act referred to, foliors: 

"Exoept as hereinafter provided motor vehicles traveling 

upon public highweys shail give the right-of-way to vehicles 
approaching al intersecting oe from the _ = 
=. the right-of-way over those sxpproaching from the 

From the evidence it appears that on the day of the accident 
plaintiff was driving a Suick automobile in a westerly direction in 
School street at its intersection with Ashland avenue. The day wes 
Clear and the psvement was dry, Ashland avenue is 38 feet ride from 
curb to curb. The defendant at the time was operating one of its 
trucks in « southerly direction on Ashland avenae. 





* * 4 
* ae aaa mee ema — mas 
\ aon , ‘ seiloeas Otis) | 
ty” ~~ Hs LHe ba weed FW ena 8 —— 

4 
M s¥ratos mon . ‘ue linteqses’ ® 9208 finan ‘GOL —E 


Te RE J 


‘eed fo Oe taeliegg (seibaetea) | 


sceL os. yell beLit soiniqd 
eTHIGD SaT BS BOLMING BRT GSRSVisae Boel Ty EVETEVL onIGLeaRS Rant 
toicequd eff mt 000,48) tet taeaghet « boxeveoor thhvndass ule , 
a to ageses yO hbenkateue eotmutal te avunned ytawres 2o0d te a 
lowed? o hae gaivixh asw ttitvalielg dolde eiigewmetun aa neonted —— 
edt Yo ¢awomn od? of os aoktneup ed? .tachneted oft of ankgmoded 
sbotehienss ed ,srotexadd atom hLdw base Seekert om at 
ad? doigw aequ taohasteb odt YS Daher ers mdelog owt tut : 
aeob eqaebive edt tedt .tetkt itaomgiet od? earores of — ei ence 
@i te 26 solitons te weiv ai ylualvoitran ,¢@newgbst ext ftecque ton 
asedutet® bontve elom2lik e'iikdeD .eeleide’ roto of noitalen ak P0h 
treo Lalxv? add Ye aoldos odd ,buenoe 2a8 szetyertad eee redqedo — 
palytitest aeeseativ edt to eae to noitatinexe~evoto add pubtimid at 


ESS 


tidtatale odt to ‘Uisded * 


sewollot ,o¢ berveter to, piotdeY cotoh af Bo notsooe edt 
yaiisverd seleidey totom bebiverg —— Prt ‘tqooxt” 








aoiciieyv of yew-to~tdgit edd evi olidug meget 
bas ¢indxy ot moxt — sul ravereen alc oad Ria 
ed? moti gridseoryqe soon edd eved 





“tte. 


énebioos ed? to yeh on? ae tai? etaegge tt —— ade sort 
ak soitoorth yLxotemes mt eLidometue dods@ — gatvixh sew weetal ate le 





sow Yah edt veumsve Daeldes tte aoteserstnt oft te teexte Loodo? 


govt shiw goat 83 ef ouneve basides “Urb am taemevag eit han waste 
ett Yo sno yabtereqe sow ante odd tn tushasteb ad’ sew ot dee, 
enaere baelded a so beork — * sd exoutt 





The plaintiff testified that she was 38 years of age and 
hed been driving a car since she was 15 years old; that the accident 
happened on September 10, 1925, about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon; 
that she was driving in avesterly direction on School street near the 
eurb and thet there was no traffic in front of her; that she came to 
a stop with the front of her ear at the crosswalk on Ashiand avenue 
before proceeding serosa; that she looked to the south and then north 
and saw a truck approaching from the north about 220 feet away; that 
the truck waa proceeding at from 15 to 18 miles an hour; that she 
started te crosa the street and her oar was completely across the 
Gar tracks on Ashland avenue when the truck ran into the rear right 
hand side of her car, throwing her against the steering wheel and 
twisting her beok against the seat and as a result of the injuries 
she fainted, 

Fern Allen, a sister of the plaintiff, teetified that she 
was riding in the oor with the plaintiff at the time of the secident 
and thet the ear stopred at Ashland avenue and she looked north and 
sew the truck about 125 to 150 fest from Sehwol street; that the suteo- 
mobile driven by her sister started to go across Ashland avenue end 
was proceeding at a speed of from 5 to 6 miles an hour; thet when 
she again noticed the truck it wae right on top of them 

A witness liehn testified that he was on the corner of 
Ashland avenue and School street, out did not notice plaintiff's aute- 
mobile before the accident, but sow the truck 20 or 25 feet north of 
him; he did, however, see the truck run into the automobile. 

A witness by the name of Vanderheyden testified that he 
was on the corner of School etreet and Ashland avenue on September 10, 
1925, when he witnessed the collision between plaintiff's ear and 
the truck of the defendant; that he was standing near his ear which 


bas sys to erasy 88 acw one tadt Holtsenod WRtembasy ot 
gashinos ed? tadd jhie exseyisl eow ode vente “a0 “ wn ava seed hed 
—E edt ab dooiets O88 tueds BSCE at ‘rodmasqee ne ‘bemeqaat 
ade teed tearte Loode® ao pobtourts Uretewe at ‘pakviad gee este tedt 
‘et euae ode test pred to tnort af oftiett on exw oxedt tedt has @ue 
ↄmu o vñ “len tien i6 dloaeetd od? te te0 104 to taoxt auls tthe gets 8 
dfxoa molt bas dtves eit of bexeoL ede tot janotes gatbesoors eroted 
tad? yews geet 088 suede at roa odd mort Hiidonotads aours e wae ame 
eda sed? ;twed as ealim @L ot aL nox ts matoovdori enw towne oa 

add saoros Usteignes eaw x20 roM ban doorte edt nuoxe of botzate 
tigit unex edt otal oat dowr? ott aod⸗ ounave bas Lite ao eioezt ‘ase 
bug Leeds yattvote ast tentens red pawomts +208 xed Yo ohio haat, 

_ eeitutad sdt to — & 88 bas Pave ade fanboys toad xd gattelwe 

| sbotatet ode 

nde tad? bottiteot — —— one to xotate 6 sett aot ae 
_taebioos edd to oul? act ts Whtndelg add dé¢iw tao one ak pauie an 
bas dtten bekoot ele han sumeve —R in boycote rao ont J bas 
~otue edd tadd jtootte Loodet sort seek oes ot ast suede aoues et we 
bas euasve bugldes eaotea oy ot Dotzate xedete ‘tod w — oLtdon 
mete tact jtued as aoltn 8 of @ mort to beoge o tx gutboooore saw 
naedh 408 Me SOE MA teoats yecmoreeree 

to tanroo odd mo sew Od ged DOLVEdCCe mdeH eeoaete a 

‘wOtus e'Thitakely cotton fom bth tui ,teorte Loodes han auaeve candi q 
to Atma toot ef te OF Xoyrt ett wae tut ,tuablons od? sueted eftdon ' 
aiidonotus edd ota mux fours ode 208 Tevewod bt om nt a 
_ 0d tedt Dedtstent aebyerizobast Yo onan ou⸗ v aveeat tw J 4 
OL xedupiqe® ao eyneve baeidnd hae deonte ioodos te xent00 edt ao ase 7 
Sas tO e'itisatalg avonsoc notatisoe os bosaeatiw ‘on ode 280k J 


‘is TER oe 


doidw xeo etd teem gatbaste eow 0 tad {tasbasteb edt Yo doute ott | : 


Oe eo ee eee ee Pe 


———— 





— 


Se eee — : — a 
— ee ON Ag oe a ee eee 











3 

was parked on School street and saw pleintiff start up her car to 
cross Ashland avenue; that at thie time the truck was from 100 

to 125 feet away and proceeding at the rete of from 15 te 18 miles 
an hour; thet When the automobile crossed the west track on Ashland 
avenue the truck hit it in the rear; thet the truck did not slow 
down or change its speed before the crash and he heard no horn nor 
signal of warning of any kind before the collision; that after the 
eollision the front end of the truck rent past the Buick from 2 to 
4 feet and the Buick was almost up to the northvest curbstone; that the 
automobile was almost turned around in School street. 

The driver of the truek, Austin Watt, testified on behalf of 
the defendant thet at a point within 50 te 100 feet from School street 
he was driving at from 8 to 10 miles sn hour; that when he first saw 
the automobile it wea 25 or 3% feet east of the east sidewalk and 
that he was within 10 or 15 feet from the north side of School street; 
that he slowed dowa but the Buick kept on coming; that it was traveling 
at a speed of sbout 25 miles an hour; that in order to keep from 
hitting it he turned to the right but the automobile kept on coming. 
On cross-examineation he testified that plaintiff ran inte the side 
ef the truck. 

The witness Senkewiez, on behalf of the defendant, testified 
that he was driving a truck for the John f. Cunningham Ice Cream Co.}; 
thet he was driving south on Ashland avenue, sbout 40 feet behind 
the truck of defendant; that when he first saw the Buick it on 
School street at sbout the Ashland avenue building line and going 
west; that it was traveling at about the rete of 25 miles an hour 
and slowed down; that the Buick and the truck came together at « 
V-shaped angle; that the truck at the time of the accident was travel- 


ing sat « speed of from 8 to 9 miles an hour. 


& 

oF te0 ted qu dtode Wtdatelq woe bag deorts Loadet aa bedxeq sew 
RCL woth ese Mees? odd omit wide tated? jauteve basides veers 

peli 85 at 2k mort Yo otes oft to gakbyoqot, Ras Yoes too? GAL oF 
Arcabdas sam dente tteanadh-temmes etvhembesadh-anbddulh rruog ma 
woke fon Dib dunt od? tede yreet edt a2 th-thd dowtt edd -onneve 

| c0m sired om banat bd Bae deste ot? oxoted heoge att egnede xo meob 
odd setts aed? yaoteiiios ad? eteted bald ye te gulerow to Leagee 
of S mort Solu ont taoq tuew dovst ott to hae daot en? sodnditoe 
At todd qenotedsun teerdiven ont ot qutednte gow toleG od? hae tot ® 
ateorts Loodell at basots Dewi? teouls eew eitdonotie 

te tiaded me Seititaes ette® — qitred sit to werkeh att oe >: en 


foerie dooded mort feet OGL of C2 -midete mrtog as te sade Gaabastod edt 


wee tetit od node todd gsuod ae wolie OF ot 8 mock fe ynivinh sew ied 
har diewehie tase edt to tee foot OF to BS sew tt oLidomotus ode 
;toenta Jootea to ohke Atzoa edt moxt took GLto OL akdtieonaw od tod? 
ihieven? ese #2 dod? pgndweo ao tqed Apdo ode tud awob Dowole od todd 
wort qeest of tebto at ted? jxged me peiia G8. tuode to. beeqe « te 
“ aantooe ae tyed eLkdomotue edd dud tdgit edt of bemnut of th yudtobd 
abhte edt ofa nat Yidudelg tat? bodbesond wx Moltantasne=seore 20 
alone? mit te 

beititest .tashasteb edt bo Riaded mo qantwedaes onentie ad : 
4.00 mane oO mardgetanyd slitudnaiiadiaaic cea ae 
batded saat Od tuode <unoves baalded no dtvon patvich wow ed dade 
mo pow th dolvi edf vse desit od mode ¢adt qtunhasteb te dowd adit 
gatoy bax emt yurbLtué sumers hueddet off tude ta teexte Looret 
twod me evils G8 te eter ed? tuode te gatiovers waw tf tet ‘hee 
“mts xentegod onso sieved of? ban kobuG wat dade ymwoh Rewste bas 
~Lovett gen tuebtnes edt Yo emte ed? dv Aowed edt ded iotyas bey: 











Anon a8 ‘eokin © of 8 wort 20 boowe — 7 





Ny ee — 


It is insisted that under the evidence the driver of 
defendant's truck had the right-of-way by reason of the statute and 
that therefore plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligenee which 
would preclude a recovery. This question has been presented to courts 
of review in this state on numerous cecasions and it hae been repeated- 
ly held that it was a question of fact for the jury ee to whether or 
not the car approaching from the right had the right of wy within 
the meaning and intendment of the statute. As has been stated in 
numerous eases, it depends upon the circumstances. If the ear approach: 
ing from the right is sufficiently distant to warrant the driver of 
the car approaching from the left to believe thet he could cross 
in safety, then, evidently, there would be no violation of the statute 
in proceeding so te do, The car approaching from the right might be 
80 far distant thet it would be an absurdity to reeuire others to 
wait until it hed passed the street intersection. No definite rule 
gan be laid down and the courts have adopted the construction that 
it becomes a question of fact as to whether or not there had been a 
violation of the statute. Heidler Sq. v. jf 
Tll. App. 89; Salgon v. Jilson, 227 ill. App. 286; Sohwarts v. 
Lingouist, 251 til. App. 320. 

This court had cecasion te consider the facts in thie case 
in Fisher v. Chappeii ice Gream Go., 256 Ill. App. 605. In that 
Case Bessie fisher was passenger in the car driven by Leati Harbus, 
plaintiff? in the case pending before this court. A somewhat different 
situstion existed in the oase of Fisher v. Ghappeli ice Cream Company, 
in that plaintiff wes a passenger. In that ense, however, it was 
argued that the record failed to disclose negligence on the part of 
the defendant by reason of the operstion of ite truck. A jury found, 
however, in that case, thet the defendant was guilty of negligence 
and another jury in the ease now pending before us for considerstion 





te tevich edt sonebive ont rebay todd botetenk — 
bas stutete ait te Hoesor ye ver· 1o ac a eid bad sows o!danbaotab 
doids sony Ligon Woddixsaeo te Verlag aon n aetaua oroao ron⸗ tags 
ation oF pagnenenq mead sed aokenexy aide Viernes C obuLoors | Diver 
bessoqss need eed $i bas enotaseoe avorsaws * a⸗ne ands as woven | * 
+e xodteds. ot * Wet eas z0% ‘faet to no ats ou⸗ # ‘pew a fads bed « 
aittis you to 3 tdges edt bed tify oe ont * ↄꝛ iaoaorqa⸗ ods fon 
at hetsts seed and 8A _ sttutete add te ‘tuombaotat aw — pataaon odd 7 
paorawe t0 ode 2 odae teavotie edd noqs adaogeb «2980 “avorsnua 
te tevixh edt sasrtes os ametesb Utmosoitive « a4 tigts at 4 aoe eat 
eset blaoo ‘ed taut eveling ot tres edt sort ‘pabdosetqes so odd 
otutate odd te fmottsloty on * ‘Diwes red a bes edd ,yters 

od $efy 2 tiga edt mort galdosoryes tao oat ob ot on. * oot X ae 
of exoddo oxtuper of wibtuads us og Bivow #1 ted? dusted wat © 








elue otiatted of .aoltoverata torte out Deweag dad $4 Ltt thee 
todd nottourtencs edt ‘betqobs vad etre ont baa 0b btek, ⸗ B20 


eoee™ on 8 


8 aoed bed eredt tom to roddodw ot as eat * ———— 
* — —————— v «o2 agibiey 
-¥ adzaudon 7258 rach {01 TES agondds «¥ — 
——— 

ence alas at event ont tebLenoe * — bed 59 
— + BBs | 7 xedekt at 
sauttal tisel ve nevinb zo odd ak regasoene s eon odes ots cos *8 


— tadwomen A .fxw0e eid? atoted gathang ease ‘ode an missed 
Gs 5 ‘ie LE 


wanswod mans? ont LLequad® .v zedett 20 « ease ot at beterxe si 

















WER eS 


naw za stevewod .een0 tet al _etogmoaneg a way Tied kelg 44 ah 

to tied ed? wo (eoneg Ligon seoinath ot better brooes ode fede — vauuaæe 
euvon xaut Avoꝛa atl to aora rogo ods to moneor, w aahaeteh ® 

eonig 2 igen te ystling eew sashaored ons ends * ads a — 

toiterebienes Tot aw oroted ‘gaiheeg wont weno ‘ont ‘aa ewt ‘tedgons bas 












5 
found such to be the case, practically om the same set of facts. in 
the former opinion it was held: 


"It is apparent from the foregoing reoity tion of 
evidence thet it is in sharp conflict. The duty of 
reconciling the discrepancies in the testimony of the 
parties was the burthen »nd duty of the jurors. It ws 
their duty to reconcile, if possible, these conflicts in 
the evidence and from the manner and sppearance of the 
several witnesses in giving their testimony to conclude 
whieh of the witnesses were entitled to the greeter eredence, 
and in arrifing at their verdict to give effect to the 
testimony of such witnesses as they believed testified te 
the truth, and on the other hand to discredit the testi- 
mony of such other witnesses whose testimony they disbelieved. 
If the jury believed the witnesses of plaintiff and dis- 
belie the witnesses of defendsnt, where their testimony 
was in conflict with that of the plaintiff, they had « 
right so to do, and if the testimony of plaintiff's wit- 
nesses taken alone is sufficient to justify the jury's 
verdict, then it is not the duty of this court to set 
sueh verdict aside unless it appears from all the evidence 

that the verdict is contrary to its probative force, ‘e 
are of the opinion from a review of all the evidence that 
it is of sufficient probative foree to warrant and sustain 
the verdict finding defendant guiltyof the actionable 
negli charged in the declaration. 

ther or not defendant's truck had the right of way 
is Likewise a question of fact for the jury to decide.* 


The jury in the case at bar had an opportunity of seeing 
the withesses and observing their demeanor while testifying, sad the 
rule is too well established for us toe depart from it, nemely, that 
this court will not reverse unless the testimony is manifestly against 
the weight of the evidenee. The testimony on behalf of the plaintiff, 
standing alone, was amply sufficient te support the verdict. 

As to the second contention of the defendant - thet the 
trial court committed reversibie error in limiting the seope of 
cross-examination - we are of the opinion that this objection is not 


well taken. The questions of fact involved, concerning which the wit- 
ness Allen testified, were not intricate or involved, tixty-two pages 
of thé record are devoted to the cross-cxamination of this witness and 
from an examination of this cross-examinetion we believe that counsel 
for defendant were given sufficient latitude. The subject was fully 


a 
HI .ePOet 2d toe Game eH ne YLinodsomtg (oend Ode ied oF! down bawot 
 $Bhed eer —** eure? ed? 


to mods atiee: gartoypstet off Box? et ato tal 
wake Be ne — Neo ie < qtate af et ¢ tat —2— 
ee Utoe: we estonegqa seals — eu gailionovor | SESE Ai 
sew @h = evox off to youh bus mondtuud ed? gow ot 
ai efelitess seed? .eidiesod tt ,elioogoed of Youd nat 
ett Fo aonmets — ones ett aoxt bus sonsbive of? — 
aby ioned oF * fers giedt goivig af ebenentiw Ierévee (| 
stoneborh TosaeTy act of beltizue erew eeasentiw off te deide — 
- p€2 o¢ dette ev kg of Posbver vhed? ge gakwierws who bee 6% 
oft bestivact bevelled yortt an etesentiw dows te toot 
ww hitgedx of¢ Pibeteeth of baad tedte ond BO baw 4 eee Soe 
shovadlods th yes yromtteed veotw eeceentin tedtvo dows to 
— mgib has trttoteig te eeneontiw edd bewetiod et ie 
yrouitee? tlede eredy ,taskroteb to aosgentiw 
# bod yate ,tthtakaly ede to eds tte toklitaoe wi waw) oo” 
—— sol aera to yromitdes? ed? te he * ob of oe Sane” ‘ 
err ee “od dneintttve ef enole ode? geese ©) 
gue 88 tu00 olf tA ng Bae Soar gg 0d : 


eomebive edt Le aor ee tates ak ee — 
————— he te est ot — ek beow ond tt 
tad? gonehive edt ile to weivet # sox? aoiai¢o edd te ome: «i 


Me — —— — we * — ——— to at th 
ela itezsloeh edt ot begtede gen 
baal 6 figia ode bed eevee sitrsbaste? tom xo 
 *,@btoeb of yrrl edt tot fost te modteoup * oedwois ee 
gatova to eeiawtroqge ae bad 9d tn ouso oat md est ‘sat r 
add oe saat ytitoos sitde ronn9aob xiodd gatvseedo ae soceeativ ant 
ded yfomen att ‘noxt roged ot * got besatisatee Lion cot a exes 
tenisge vtestious wt ynonitest edt eesiny versver ‘tom “ihe trw09 aide 
ettitatedg ad? to tiated ao qomitest ont “soomebive: ode te tigtew ode 
Wi stoLbrey edt droquue as tas torres aus ase 280k petiuate 
oat tedt - ‘taobasteb ox? Yo soltaetaoe bnoo 98 ‘edt c BA cd 
_ Ta eqoog ede —R ak ‘torre aidtevoven bet tzanoo —* fain? 
ton ak as ta oatas efit aota ige eng to ots ow ~ aotr ontaan o· boro 
“tiv oft foide yainreocoe ,beviownt test to anoljnsup oft — Liew 
pence owt-ysxie boviownd 40 eteoiuéal ton oxow ,bettiveed moti eee 
bas seturtiw sid? To nottaninaxt~geore ert of betoveb eta brewer bf? ‘to 


Lvenveo todt oveklod aw goltenimaxe-anote afd? to aottentenks me mont 


»> dy 
fe adel oh 
a AN 











6 
covered both on direct and cross-examination. 

We see no reason for reversing the judgment and, therefore, 
in accordance with the views herein expressed the judgment of the 
Superior Court is affirmed, 

JUDGMENT AVFIRMED, 


HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CONCUR. 


























‘ 


wy gaia bel) tee Ga RP es srg 






‘ti: sist mip ve he 


sotokereds oe ** ede —— 


— task by ak whee 
orbs —— 






“aul? eat Bene 
oe: * ping for ie —— hone hae ene Ye 
Saver eee LS yey Pik onet emeciw dewmnnd oy wade Mee 
Site BS ture bs dim we Fad Dee a ee MeN Fae est Horntied 
we mek eNO ulodt “he 4 ate 
& Bes yore 3 ————— ae hie car ae 
athe att bina oe pronase omy 22 bern 
of ag ai — — HN DEOL yar — i 
hi nA —— we e7 < : —5 — 








3 att — ahem nah Ath pid 
3 Dank suetinegt bytes 4 OES 

pa fees oe 

ie fie Ge ety 

eee eH tah eth sol eae ee 

* gies esl et vent i hail fear 


oon te ** @ hin BEN a hits as awd awd ii rab oe ai “ptarh 






nee Bae qpekytiswod alleen sete niott | 
gaz ee 2 yionsa até not toners * vr pot . 
ven lsae giteotionw mt — ate ue im : 
gttkteiadg at? to Lieded kg — V———— ‘ost | 
eo seorny edt proqae hd ai 08a : 

edt fade — — — Pasta? ab with ye —— pac wt o 


ie inal — 
—— peat | 
⸗ taste eT wea i —* 


J 


36308 


THE ELECTRIC AUTOSLITE 00., a 
Corporation, 


/ 
(Plaintiff) Appellee, 


APPMAL FROM 





MUNICIPAL COURT 


Ve 
WIESOLDT STORES, ING., a 
Corporation, OF CHICAGO. 
yen TT aA fh 4 
(Defendant) Appellant. méU 1A. 633 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
BR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF PE GOURT, 
Plaintiff brought its action against the defendant to 
recover the price of 6,000 electric clocks sold to the defendent on 
Ootober 22, 19351. The cause was tried before a jury and the court 
directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $3,365.91 and 
judgment wes entered on the verdict. The affidavit of merits filed in 
the cause admitted that the defendant ordered and received the goods, 
Defendant claimed, however, that under a subsequent oral agreement the 
Phaintiff agreed tht if the defendant was unable to sell the clocks 
at a specified price to the trade, it would take the clocks back, Under 
the pleadings the plaintiff offered no testimony in the first instance 
and the defendant, on ite own behalf, produced the testimony of certain 
witnesses in support of its contention. 
Luckman, Oslled on behalf of the defendant, testified that 

at the time of the transaction he was connested with the defendant 
Gompany and thet he talked with a man by the name of betes who told 
him he was salesmanager of the Electric Auto-Lite Company. This con- 
versation was in September, and that as a result of this and other 
conversations with Sates the defendant purchased 6,000 clocks which 
were subsequently delivered, The witness further testified that it was 
stipulated between himself and Bates that the clocks were to be sold 
retail at 98¢ » piece; that he prepared an advertisement for the purpose 
of selling said clocks and that Bates again called upon him and informed 


Me BOAG JASQIA ' \ a * 71 EOWA —— * 
——— —D—— —— 
THO JATIN 
; f f 4 ‘ t * » af ee Aopen Baas ie et 
, &. 2eOHl m 





_—- ODAOTHD 10 | 
‘geo .A.1 OFS | 
ESCL .bS ye beLlit nointqd 
.tau00 Sh? WO WOIMISO BHT GanavIaaG woRLiw wOLreUt ewtecesed a OP" 
ot fasbasteb edt Santage molten ett téquoed Tektelelt = 
ao ¢acbaeteh ef? of Bios eteois otrtesle 006,38 to soizg ot xovooer 
3 tuyoo oft bas ytwt 2 ereted belt? amw seuso edt Leer ha redoteo 
bas 18 GE E% te mve ode tok Thitmlaly to tovel wi tolhrey 2 potoorth 
ai beLit stixes te divebitite ed? .toibrey edt ao beretae say tnomgbat i 
ssboog ot Devisoer bas Lonebue taabagted edd dadt betdimbs oauso ots 
edt teemeerges iero dneupeadne « tebay tad? ,tevewed ebambezo dnsbaoted 
edeolo edt [Lee of eldsaw swe taabmeteb ed¢ YL test boorgs lasiota 
asdan etosd pasoto eft easd biuoe ti ,ohet? edt of ealtq borttoege ry ts 
soaetant tarit edv ai yaomites? on boxstto ttitelalg sit egnibaeta eas 
alet1e0 to yaomitas? od? heovbotq atiadod mee efi no tusbagted ont bats 
etoltavéaem ati to trovque ma ooeeentty 
ted? beititact ,tasbasteb edt to teded ao belino tansond —— 
tnabasteh edt déiw betoonnes gow ed soktoneaent edt to ontt ot te | 
Biot ode eetet to oman edt yt namo dttw bediag ad ¢od? bun yneqmee 
~s09 sidl .Yanquod efhi-otwA okasoals edt to reggnammetoe asw od aad . 
sorte baa eld Yo tower 2 as todd bua yredmedqes at sew nottsexey : 
doidw efoelo 000,39 Deesdotug tanbacteh edd estat tbe — i 


saw th Sadt beltiteos roddau? east tw edt sbotovtish viteiapostie — 


fees 


etieLLogys {taebasted) 





















—R edt tol ¢nemoettrevbs as borngerg od sade jeoedg a e Later 4 
Res of 
amrotat bas mid aoqu beliso shage merat ⸗o⸗ bas x00 ise e gatiion a 


2 

him that the Soston Store, which was also seliing these clocks, was 
angry because Gates had sold the clocks to the defendant and that 

the Boston Store waa going to cut the retail price of the clocks to 
the trade if they should be advertised by the defendant; thst the 
witness then said thot if that were the case he should be the first 
one to cut the price of the clock and would sell it for 69¢; that Bates 
said he must not do thet beonuse it would ruin their trade in this 
territory; that finally it was agreed thet the clocks could be adver- 
tised for sale by the defendant for 89¢ and that if the defendent was 
not able to sell these clocks at that price, the plaintiff would toke 
off of the hands of the defendant ail of the clocks left unsold after 
the running of the advertisement; that Sates also steted thet if the 
defendant was unable to sell these clocks at the price agreed upon he 
would have no trouble disposing of them @laewhere, The witness also 
stated that the night of the day upon which this conversation was had 
he, together with Bates, went to Toledo where the plant of the £lectric 
Auto-Lite was situsted; that he visited the factory of the plaintiff 
Company where he met « Mr. Kelly who was introdvueed to him as the vice 
president of the piaintiff company and thet Kelly informed the witness 
thet all matters pertaining to the cloeks and their deliveries were 
left to Mr. Bates and that he, Sates, was operating the Chicago end 
of the division. 

The order for the delivery of the cloecke by the plaintiff 
was dated October 22, The visit to Toledo was November 2 or 3. The 
first advertisement placing the retail price of the clocks at 89¢ 
was run on or about October 24 or 25. The conversstion between the 
witness Luckman and Bates was on or about Cetober 28 or 29. 

Treo other witnesses called on behalf cf the pliaintiff cor- 
roborated the testimony of Luckman. At the end of defendent's testi- 
mony the court instructed the jury to return « verdict in favor of 
the plaintiff. 


eaw ,eieolo seed? gett fou gels saw doide ‘exes natued odd -taddd-mid 
sedd bas tashaeted odd of exoolo ad? Blea hat este geusced yrgas 

of steolo edt to o6iva iister edt tuo of atom een etot? aoteok edd 
edt teft jtnshasteb ed? yw beettyevbs ed biverdm yedd Bs ‘ehaxt * 
texit oft od blucde of Geen oft otew Sadt Yi ted? hise nods esend tw 
ot ati éadé :203 cet #2 {Lee Bivoy bas Yooie ade te salma edt to oF ono 
abdt af Stlocif ‘x2¥its dive Sivow #2 seusved tadt ob ton toum od bios 
‘wtavhe ed biweo afocto oft tent — een th ViLeatt test ivrotireot 
eew tasbasteb edd ti todd bas age ‘cot suabasteb ont va olen ‘sot dealt 
extet Bison ttitatela edz sol ‘tad te eaivelo sosdd {ive of olde toa 
rests Bioeny #tel exoole edt Yo Lis taahaeteb art te abasd ‘ede te te 


edt UY tedd badedu owe uetet tadé jtuowesttrevbs ode to wokmawrs ott : 
‘ed toa peerge alte edt ts adeolo seods Lies of eldams ean — 






—— 


@alk eeentin ott vovedtweelo mode te gutsoaeth sidwont on ovad | 
bad tee Holteetevmos eld? dotde nous web oft to gts oa ‘tede betote 


thet , 


ix#eel® add to taely ed? atody obelot of tnee edad ‘ithe arese⸗ aod 
“‘Ythealsle ont to Ytetoet oft botlary ad tae jbosaut te esw “ethi-omwa 


— 


solv edt es mid of Beovbordal eow ode qiles “th @ ton od oxede caacee⸗ 
eeontin od¢ Bewrotal ylied todd bas Yaad meD “Wbtately edd te tnabieorg 


Lees * 


orew neicevileh tiedt bas eatoelo att of guictadaeq ‘eret tan . iis tedé 
bas comand ede ——— naw wor ed * tose be — tl ot tet 


“ssotetrib of Yo. 

YitaLele eat yd eaoo lo edd To wreviieb ote wo? ‘tebt0 od? ee 
ed? .£ to & sodmevok saw abeLot of Stety oat ae x9de#s0 botsh * 
$02 t= edoole of? to — Lister oat ‘witoolg ‘fmomeesstovbe text : 
oat neorted ao ifsexevnoo ent 188 10 as wooreo toss oy a0 ae se 


ne Seal SF a * 
88 0 8% rodetod twods to ao enw seted bas astout tie 


fe AAP ate : + Dy Pa AC oer 
-ro0 Ythtntely sd¢ to Yiaded uo boLise evanentiw redto by 4* 
Y PRE ae eae — 

~ttnes etonebuoteb to bao edd $4 .aamdemd to yaomened teed odd | J 
— Nee) Y DALE BE ise. oe 

o revs? at fottrey  auutot of ‘Yet odd betouttect twee odd yom 


ros tale ott 

















From the evidence it may be gathered that the original pur- 
chase of the clocks by the defendant was an outright purchase and 
sale; that subsequently it appe red that the clocks could not be sold 
in quantities to the retail trade at 98¢. There is testimony also 
to the effect thet there were others handling the ebock in the 
Chicago district who were contemplating cutting the retail price, It 
was a matter of importance to the vendor that a situation be prevented 
under which the retail price would be cut to such an extent as to 
destroy the market for those purchasing from the plaintiff for the 
purpose of re-sale to the »ublie generally, Parties to a contract have 
a Tight to modify an sgreement even after its execution. It is true 
that the sale of the clocks in question was a completed sale and deliv- 
ery made, but there is evidence in the record from which it ean be 
gathered that Bates and the agents of the defendant comcany entered 
into an agreement under which Bates, on behalf of his company, under=- 
took to take back such clocks as remained unsold provided the defendant 
was not able to dispose of them at a price agreed upon between Sates 
and the defendant compeny. There was no reason why such an agreement 
should not be binding in view of the fact that the defendant may have 
been unable to make sales of the clocks at the price fixed, provided 
Bates had the authority to enter into the agreement on behslf of his 
employer, Commercial Gar Line v. 
Ill. App. 187, A number of cases are cited in opposition to this rule, 





but from an examination of these cases it appears that they have to 
deal with special subjects such as the sele of land where the agency 
is a particular agency for a single transaction. fhe trensaction 
having been completed the ageney ends. 

The case of James M, Ide v, Brody, 156 Ill. App. 479, cited 
by plaintiff in support of its contention that the agent head no 
euthority to make an offer of repurchase on behalf of his principal at 
the time of the sale, is not in point. The evidenee in that case does 


~tuy isatgize edt todt Dexedtag ed. you 414 epmebive edt word. 
Spa satetey tégittue as ene teshasheb eft, yt adegte. eit. J — 
bles ed tea biveo wleote eft tends borvoqqe #4 yLtmoupendyve todd pokes 
cals Yooultsed af ered? .208 Je abaxt Listes, edt og asitidans 





rasp. ah 

. edt sf deodo. edt ariibasd axnadte stow exeds andd, tparte add of 

ti volta Alates edt zakarus gaiteiqnuetnon ssw one. selvtelh ogeagdo 

dotasverq S8Aotdiudss, O° d4me mahiey odd of apagzogs he nttany: % ai 
_ et es Suegxe aa dows ot tuo od. biver pokne, Lieder ont olde. m1 

add rot titatasg ed? most galeadonmg eaodt wt Pescom oft yortaah 














_ owed et, 3 ” sapiens bea tetihainailiadin 





-vileb hes fee betelquoe 9 ew ughtesup ai edeode odd to aise ot tadd 


ad aso @2 doide woxt beooet edd ai, gonodive 22 exedt aed , aban eee 
_bevetae yesqaoo taabasteh odt to ataoya edd bag, net fos herve 
mxehay ,Yaernes eff Yo Rissed wo avted dnkdy rohas dmomoonge a9 otk 
ianbanteh ef? bebivete bloanws bealawet es eteets dows. aoed. d nd of toot 
aeiat aoerted nous boomge cotta 4 te ede to seogeth of eldy don saw 
_daoneetga ae doe ydw canest of saw ocatt viamon iashastsd edt baz 





eyed vam saahaaneh aft tndt tend. sdf 2e.ante mk BAIN 


bebivona .h9xkt os tag ent, ta exloelo. ody, to aelae olan of aidan ws MOS 
eid to tiated so teanmerys wt etal roans of wtisodtua ot bad ands 
— ,.nde as to _.fontobss 1A mdob — AAR ig * 








_ oF eved yoddt taste aꝝ aaqus tL. ——V ath 
youese oft pend ek 24 Ae e— 







moka 


* 7 M 
Seige ana iF pape es 


batio en. etd. oft B8L., pprien: et ont m A ene edt a — ft 


om bed taoge off todd nodinstnoe eft te snogqua mh ML tale we 
te So ata: mh nt as ac *— 


avob oase tad? at vomebive edt statoq at ton at aelea ements it 


™ 








4 

not show that the offer to repurchase was made by the agent who made 
the sale. Moreover, it appears that the option to return the goods 
was not exercised by the buyer within a reasonable time thereafter, 
The instant case does not come within the rule that the ageney can 
not be established by the agent in order to bind the principal, in- 
asmuch as there is no question but thet Bates was the agent of the 
plaintiff, When it is established that a certain individual is an 
agent and acting on behalf of a principal, the question as to whether 
or not he is acting whthin the scope of his employment and within his 
powers is usually one of fact for the jury. The rule is otherwise 


where the agency is only by implication. The Supreme Court of this 


State in the case of Faber-iusser Go. v. Dee Giny Oo,, 291 Ill. 240, 
in its opinion says: 


"'h general agent, unless he acts under = special and 
limited authority, impliedly has power to bind his principal 
by whatever is usual and proper to effect such a purpose as 
is the subject of his employment, and in the absence of 
known limitations third persons dealing with such a general 
agent have a right to act on the presumption that the scope 
and character of the business he is employed to transact 
measures the extent of his suthority and to held the principal 
responsible for the agent's acts within such authority.’ 

(2 Gorpus Juris, 581; see to the same effect, 21 8. 6. Lb. $54.) 
‘where a principal has by his voluntary act placed an agent in 
such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant 
with business usages end the neture of the particular business, 
is — “ in presuming thst such agent has autherity to 
perform 4 particular set, and therefore deals with the agent, 
the principal is estopped as against such third person from 
denying the agent's authority.’ * (21 8 G. Le 907). 


There is evidence in the record before us from which it may 
be inferred that Bates was the representative of the plaintiff company 
in the Chicago district. There is nothing to indicate that bis powers 
in thet regerd were limited, and it was s question of fact for the 
jury 2s to whether or not the defendant company had a right to rely 
upon the representations of Sates that the company would take back 
the clocks in the event the defendant would waive its right te sell 
them at a price below that which the plaintiff company was desirous 
of maintaining. 


* 
ebam ody taege oct yi thas saw seadozoge: of tekto edt dadt wode tom 
aboog odd muuéox of wodtge add todd exeoqge th .tevestos  sodne, ont 

eT9Ttaoredt omit eidanocess agatdaiw toyod odt yd boalorere som, paw 
fee ~waege odd dtodd elev edd nidtin swoop fon aaah sean tastead oft 
“ti ,leqionttg edt. paid of rebyo a2 tasya.edd ys bedelidetes ed ton 
ed? te taegs edd aw evtati ted? ted seiteoup on gl ered? ga dower 
fe et Jevbieibal aistreo » tadt bedaiigntes ef 44 moms, -tistaials 
todiede ef se colfseun et¢ ,leginaing « to tiaded ae yaites bas Jaege 
aid gidtis bes teeuyoiqms afd to eqeos od¢ midtdw. gadten. et ed ten. x0 
seiwredte ef elux edt .ysul odd tot gost te eno Yisaue 

aidt to #xvo0 emexqu® edt .aedieoiiqné yi yimo ef youegs od? ones 
eOPS oti £68. .2G0 Nelo oO «7 02 soneuiicgodel to sese. ade me — otsie 
18 ye mokatga atl ag 


data Satooge « tabaw efoa ots ite te Lexonmg At. 
‘baeleche t i bald of tewoq aed fie ; a. — 


al seats @ot i teved 
———— edt ke — ear hg oles 


lavenes «2 dowe dthw aakic ap eg ist a 
—R tadt nite ed? ao ae ee 3 













toeanet? of bY — baa, 
feqteatzg m biod of baa Bly Rae ot to pgm 
'.ygitadiuse dove aidtiw atos.a'taege edt cot eid Lene J—— 
4.088 oa 50 * — — edt + 8 Rw: 8: | 
ai isegs as keoslg Ytatawioy. & eves dig 
tasevsyago ,sonehmwy erantbre to pe y a natn: oe 7 
apnoaiaud itnag sae to sumten add eeu ai Beidives — 
of ytizo ln le eg By enc (a be 


taese a4¢ dtie eleek exo — 
MORLAG * —4 series as beycotee 9 — 36 


e (868 od 09 08 18) * M eyteredias at taege. pre on: 
, yon th dokde moxt, av sxoted buocer ed¢.ad sonsbive.et ered? - ee 
Wiequee Litotel edd to ovitetapeorqes, ant aaw, Sete sod borates — 
erowoq aid dadt eteothad ot gatdton of axedt .totuteth eysotdd edd mt 
edt sot test to aotteowp # ecw #1 has ,betinti oxow breges.tadt wt 
ylor of tiyix 6 bet yosqmoo tnekweted edt tom xo todtedw, of, 2 Yea 
Ab⸗g cdot bivew ynaqnoe edt tad? eetas Yo naolistaoeexgex edt now 
Live of tdgit ets evien Bivow tachasteh sdf taove orld at exooLe, odd 
— aMOTsOb caw YWaqueo Tkitaleig edt doidw tadt woled eolzy a te modt 








We believe the trial court erred in directing a verdict as 
there was evidence to sustain the position taken by the defendant 
upon the trial. 

For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of the 
Municipal Court is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. 


REBEL AND HALL, JJ. COKCUR. 











are tut Bee hh 2 eg i 


es todbrov 9 gatiooxth 1 


CEH THRE aad dee aaa 
ob edt yt aelet & 
ETTSGL ITE Bnet Sime ae see yee) be Vee one bee 


aS UR GD Sts @ oe — ty * ide 4 — 


Brig 


















— 2 — SN: 


be 24 a Om 
BG Tee. MeL Wee 


RA SRE Le en Reems Loa ee te — i ee 
folesasite hs See OEE Eee wilt tet ees. 

669 Le bine were ast wea dab tbnmd of w Lae eh 

HORE AS EO 5 lh Seek ames we te aN 9 


























ae bes "ie ae 
Be oes when. @ * die pee 
main aie soe memes Pome ep ay 
SAGAR? ct DODD te Be & 
sim honkeg Gos bled oF Baw yarn: aa i 
ng * * Carag to og 












7 ae 

eres acy comet ‘sean tea a ery ee 

ete rs Rei RLF Sa, COt Sep eae ahaa 
ao Yee est Sot ak tome eure ett 

i bk — ithe. aban’ ere Shas teal ——— 
je elle. hou 

—* «fi 18) hg is 


Tae £2 aokde werk es seated 






age: Tits he kw wae be yee hy 

RM Rah tats ote tie? Pee a it id 
wHaS aot #9} ig as FPSO AR ts 
C204 oF tee ky o dad vb” * — 


Meee. oulot ade, Ca r 
A t —* RA 


€ it 


Abt OF Deh kee wid mepioie ——— 


36317 
AUGUST GAMPETTO, Administrato# of 









PPEAL FROM). 


Estate of Josephine Smaniotto, ff 
(Plaintiff) Appellant, ff ™~/ 
SUPERIOR count, 
Ve f 


CHARLES RK. BLESSING, 
(Defendant) Appellee. 


COCK COUNTY. 


Bi a ehePuag-eda rod 3 3 


WR. PRESIDING JUSTICE WILSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE OoOURT, 

August Gampetto, Adminiatrator of the Estate of Josephine 
Spaniotto, decensed, brought his action in the Superior Court to 
recover damages from the defendant because of the death of the 
deceased arising out of injuries sustained by reason of being struck 
by an autemoblle which was being operated by the defendant, Charles 
BR. Blessing on the north drive of Garfield Fark on April 12, 1931. 

A jury was waived and the cause tried by the court and judgment 
entered for the defendant at the end of the plaintiff's evidence. From 
this judgment an appesl was prayed and allowed to this court. 

We have not been sided in our considerstion of this czuse by 
briefs filed on behnlf of the defendant. 

From the facts it appesrs that the deceased, together with 
her daughter and son-in-law, had been walking along 4 perk path in 
Garfield Park and came to the boulevard known as the North drive. 

This path was continued on the other side of the boulevord and it 
appears from the evidence that it was a continuous path and thet it 
was Gustomery for pedestrians to cross the boulevard in order to 
Continue along the path previdéd by the park authorities, The seci- 
dent happened on Gunday at about 3:20 o'clock in the «fternoon. 
About a bleek east of this crossing used by pedestrians and persons 
in the park, there is a bend or curve in the north drive and there 
were bushes and trees slong the driveway. The deceased and her 
companions were crossing North drive at this point. The son-in-law 






\ * * \ . 
HORT aay Soe Re hosendeterteda (OTRITHAD | 
oun ‘ ae, pt tedaant ankagesel, te ‘staten ‘i 
—— J (rRaambest 
Nas orasaus ough we 
Me at Ae Gig? SN bg — 
oFRRMOO 3900. ip i ee TR, * PMs 


8 8 Ger Mars aoltaigd — — 


2000 BAT GO AOLAISG SHY ree oe fOr TAU SUTAIEARS, lesa 
aaldgesot te atetel ad¢ to tofetteiaieha otvequad —— 


et tuvod telveqy? edd af saitee eid tigword ,Soene0eb ,ottokaag® . 

adit to dteoh att To seveeed tuakasheh ed¢ mott sageand xevooes 
dourte gated to aosser yi healatase eoiewtad to tye gakelts bexesoeh: 
seireat) ,taekavteb edd yd betsrece gaied een doldy eLidewotue an wo 


ASGL ,8L Linga wo tant Sielttad to etieh déaen oat wo gaiseole ot 


tmemgbut fae truco edt yi bolas suwmo edd bas beview som Yxwt A 


st ,sonebive e'tittalelq edt to bao oct te tasbaoteh edt ‘tot Soredme — 
stro freee of anata —— ea 

d vauvae efdt to aoidorebiagoo two ai Debke geod gon oved OF 
sinshaoted eit eo thadsd ae bakth wheter 

dtie tedtegot ,becceosh edt ted? ateegqe #4 afeel ad? moti 

sf dtay dteq « geole igs bad ne need bed qretmnienos bas Tedigued red 
.ovinb dorol edt ae mvont eaveluod edd ot tims das aeet HLotheso” 
th ban bievelyod edt Yo ebte tedto eft mo deuntdcos sew ddeq ehtt 
ti godt bur déeq suoumdéage & gow $2 taste eonebive edt moxk etesqqe 
of tebre ai Drsvedved edt veore of wankttecbsq tot yrewefeve ean 
-ioon odT  neitivedtes areq edt yw bObivexy Atay od? gage ounkines: 
ssooatedts edt mt doelo'o Oss guoda tn yabaw? ao deneqqed taab 
cnonteg bie anattéaebeq yh Sees yatesore wid? to seae abold x suedA. 


aredt baa evith dévon eft ab ovewo to bused « ei otodd aitaq ot ma ; 
red bas heassoed edt .yawovdth edt gaots anon tale eee nem oy 


wai~ai~noe edt .taleg aid? ga svinb widens — oner BAe LisqEeo 


{ 





— 


2 

hed reached the opposite side in safety and had just stepped upon 

the curb. His wife, the daughter of the deceased, was in the act of 
stepping upon the curb when she as well as the deceased was struck by 
the fender of the oncoming car eperated by the defendant. After 
deceased was struok by the car her body was dragged «a distance of 

100 to 125 feet from the crosswalk. fhe police officer testified that 
the body was lying eat that distance from the crosawaik at.the time 

he came upon the scene of the accident. 

From the facts it is clear that there was evidence in 
support of the contention that the defendant was negligent in the 
operation of his car. One person was struck and killed, another 
person was struck and injured, and « third person narrowly escaped. 
The accident happened very close to the curb. It would be impossible 
to conceive that the driver of the car did not, or should not have 
seen thin group of people. fhe fact that the bedy of the deceased 
woman was dragged a distance of 100 to 125 feet indicates that the 
Gar was driven at « high rate of spesd. It would take evidence to 
overcome the presumption of negligence on the part of the driver. 

The court's cpinion must have been based on the proposition 
that the plaintiff's intestate was guilty of contributory negligence. 

Engebretsen, the police officer, testified that a person 
could s¢e a Gar approaching a couple ef blocks away if such person 
were standing on the crosswalk, but he does not testify from what 
point on the crosswalk such car could be seen. 

Campette, the son-in-law, testified that he saw the ear end 
that it was going from 35 te 40 miles an hour, but thet they had time 
to Grogs; thet he did not hear « horn or signal and was about 6 inches 
from the curb when he saw the car about 15 feet eway; that the North 
drive at this point is about 40 feet wide. His testimony is not entire- 
ly satisfactory in that he steted that after he saw the car coming they 


a 
sous beqqete tout bad bow votes at abie o tacaao ode bodoser ‘bad 
to fon edt al eav pounsesh oad ke reddgwab. aut aethn eat. duwo ed 
YW dowtte sew boaseoed edt ua iiow s¢ ade maths dame edt goqu galqqeds 
aegta .tnabnsteb edt yw bedeseqo tee gaimoonp ef¢ to rebaet edt 
| to otaetsth © beagash wae Ybor xed see edt yo downte sow Beaseped 
fadd Deltisest reoltte sodiog od? wKigwenone edt mot good BSL oF OOL 
meh ee, bes vikenieonA ndt.wet oonetelh tedt te yaiyl wow ybod ode 
chbomabiensmnaents toltuntedes teed ipod 
att a2 tasgiigen caw tachankeb eid todd aoitastagn eit. —*— 
cottons .helitd bos dovete tow goexeg om) ad etd To modteweqo 
 sboqeree yleortm aoereq bridt « hea ,Seeuped San goede sew nonteq 
oidtesequt od Siver #1 tus od? af seole qov Sencqgad daebioos eat 
ered ten Sinota to ston bib aan ade to cov inh ont ech erdoeneo.ot 
beexevet gat to ybod ad? tedd fost ad? .odqoeg to query etdt move 
ott sed solsnibnk soot BSL oF CCL Yo sonstods a hoggent enw nomow 
ot eouebive east bivew th ,heage to ster agli a te sevath gow tee 
sxe7ith odd To suey edt mo emmpgiiges te asdtquwadag edd emooxevo 
nottteoqer: odd no beesd aeed.eved teum meiniqo altauge ed% > oir 
soonegiigen qrotedlusnes to Ytling saw Statsotad ettiigaielg od? todd 
mooray © tadd beltuteot ,xeodkto voding ole, qweetemtagMl oo. ou 
acnre; dove tA wus stood to eiqueo.a gatdveonqus tap.4 ee, bingo 
Sade wort yYisdaet tom 2e0b od dud .Aiavenose pat mo. galbante, mew 
7 +x998 od bivoo tae dowe Xiewnaero ost doris 
bts ano ot wee od dost Dedbitass guad~ndmnos 244 yoePOqmabe 9) gxe 
eakt bad ysdt gest tod .wwod ae eolia Od of, 88 moti gaiog. con oh ta 
sedent.@ svods eaw San Lengia'so wed @ teod tea bib od tad qauono 03 
atron od gant pyaws toot 21 twods tHe edt woe od made dus edt mor’ 
etitas ton et qomtten? sik .ebiw teat Ob duods at tateg vidt to ovest 
a pemac aaa illicit is dowke ad 
—E eG CREF GA OID AGO dutrrn | ae “osc * 

















3 
kept on going scross; thet they had time to oress over the forth 
drive and took « chance, 

Angeline Qampetto, the daughter, testified thet her mother 
was 44 years of age at the time of her death and in good health; 
thet about 400 feet enst of the place where the agcident cocurred there 
was a Curve in the road and bushes around and that she believed the 
right hand side of the oar struck her mother. The police officer 
testified that the left headlight of the mechine was broken. Angeline 
Campette was asked some questions concerning her testimony at the 
coroner's inquest, but there was no testimony introduced as taken 
before the coroner in impesohsent of her statements, 

The trial court mey have been of the ovinion thst the 
testimony of one or both of these witnesses indicated contributory 
negligence. The question as to whether or not these witnesses were 
guilty ef contributory negligence was not the issue involved in the 
casée The question whs whether or not the decessed was guilty of 
Contributory neglisence, The trisi court should have heerd ail the 
evidence before entering its finding. 

Plaintiff's intestate wae rightfully at the point vhere 
the accident occurred, proceeding over and slong a path provided by 
the park system, and had an equal right with the oncoming automobile 
to use the highway «et that particular point. The plsintiff in 
operating his automobile through « public park on « Sunday afternoon 
wes required to teke notice of the faet that people would be in the 
park and particularly at the place in question. fhe fact that the 
plaintiff mey have been able to see the machine for 400 feet, in and 
of iteelf does not constitute contributory negligence on her part in 
proceeding across the highway under the circumstances involved in 
this cese. Under the view we take of the facts os they appear in 
the testimony, the court should have heard sli the evidence before 
entering its finding. 


s 
—— — oboros yatog ao ‘teat 
' doneda » soot bas —— 
sedtton wed Fede Haltitest .vsedyuch Oc% yotteqmad eallegnk — 70— 
— 00st ahd $00 sit" GN DAN 
nd? betaddec dmebioce od? otetw coele oat te Yeas eoek OOa dioda dade” 
ads hevelied de dade hae Baers sodaud bee beox ed? al ovewe & eam 
coef eo. estieg ed? \udddow eed Moutte a0 edt to obie Baed Hight’ 
aniiogas .wederd esw entdoou od to tiglibsed Fol Bde edt hortiteed 
odd ta YWomidyed tod paleteoKed ead iesuo Owes beter Btw ottequsd 
aude én beasbotial qnomiteod Gn tan eredt dud ,twoupaid s'teng7Teo 
3 . satnemetede wed te siemdoneght ai résneteo eat scéted 
‘edt ted solaico odd te audc oved yam Peaoo Laied oct |” a 
- Beedediveno Sedeothns eostontin sevdd To ded to sao to Wealdedd 
erty eecavadiw seodd ton to Teddode ot we aolteorp ed? oomeghly 
edt wi bevioval tuest odd tom Bow — * ‘Ytotuds 




















edt Lie Breed oved biuode truce Leics ett .semeniigen % ay * 
Eberun ett gadtemms erated som 
evens faleq edt te ellutidgit vow etetestnl eletidnkalt 

qd Rebivoty déeq s yale bas teve gaibdsdorg (Berauose Faebsoos edt 

olidemotie gtkeoone edd déiw tigix Levge me bad had ymoteye tx0q edt 
at Ytiteiob; ew? .éntog taluoltieg todd #8 yoedgid ond Gen Od 
Roontetts tha 2 no dxey oliduy 4 tgactd? eLidemotua nid yakioroqe 
add at od Bluow elqoeg fad seat end to voltin ated —* ner eon 
ed? Gadd toet onT stoltaous at eoale eat te yt | 
bay af ,tost 00) ‘tot exidoam od? Seu od eldn need eved Yam Tttdataly * 
at fraq ted ao sonegiigen Yrotuiivitoe Sfuditence tom — 
ni bevioval esvantamvetio ed? tehdiy Yordgid od? axotds giridsonesg 
gh eeqge youd a9 eee? ont To ouet Ow wet one tobau * — 
—E enV CO ths SAR Ee EAR YAN A 0 feet ont 























A mumber of cases have been cited by counsel for plaintiff 
to the effect that « trial court should not direct « verdict at the 
end of plaintiff's evidence if there is any evidence on the part of 
the plaintiff which, standing alone, would support « verdict. In 
the ease at bar, however, the trisil wae before the court without a 
jury. A motion to find for the defendant in the trial before the 
sourt without a jury raises only « question of law as to the suffie-~ 
ienoy of the evidence to authorize « recovery. The allowance of 
the motion does not settle the issues of fact. In the view we take 
of this case, it cannot be said as a matter of law that the plaintiff 
Cannot recover because that question involves the consideration of 
the facts. Helm v. Sommers beg S79 TLL. 370. Under 
all the facts and circumstances in the case, in our opinion, it cannot 
be said,as a matter of law, that deceased was guilty of such negligence 
on her part as precluded ® recovery. 

For the reasons stated in this opinion the judgment of 
the Superior Court is reversed snd the cause remanded for a new tricl. 

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUGE REMANDED. 





HEBEL AND HALL, JJ. CONGUR. 


) iy 


‘ } ) 


ad? te teibxev © Metdh fon Divode tuvoo Leite w Feels Goette exe ot 


Ye tec oct mo eeanbive yto 82 Srodt Yd oowebive ee Piia. ite fe to bus 
a tuedtiy duvoo ext sroted asw Leis? edt ~tevowed ysed 8 Seed 6 
edt #roted Inted odd m2 teatmeted edt tot Aakt ed morte KH 4 ort 


~olttie eit-ot as wal to aeffaeus © ylmo eseier yet « tuodiiw Fixe 


to tonewelle od? .yrevooer o ovirodde® of gonsbive ear to one 
eded on welv sit af Veost Yo eeveet onff Blvter — noltom ot 
tLsdtkete edd tecid wal to cotdem 2 es bier of tothe : 
to moltetehione ed? eeviewst — ⸗“ fut ouweeaa iweo toanse 
reba! OTe £27 OF , ateee. 
fontnd 82 .wekuiqe twe ai ,eeee ads wf | 








Lo: theagtat st motaiqo etue at mentees ements! tae" 
_icizt wan # tet bebaemoy aux eft Sue beatever ef Paso —XRXR 


CSCWANER MOUAD GHA aatanvan runnn eee 


e 


oe ee — 
oe By 


m oe 
a ih SS ee gate PR 40 Ses ake 
¥ 4 bend, chet 

ee i Re Se MR a x aes sy Ges ee" oe 
5 ang és * ae ee hee 

— wlideitow ehh yaereeeed 


j * ; : P : ——— 
nie te tehten eka? a) bor dveln Ge 


Jags ae ae wh 5 apa te gbvniveeheay tap gta 
» lw atve'se decadent scons manne 
#2 j wit Shak) seared oat ‘beet ty Soar e’ ‘abe 
% hin gt eee * wenn: | 
hy Sie te eat gate ae” Veen a 
rate? Sy diate Paget ede ona eit 
onthe t® ad — 


* 
ee —— 
eg a a 


“yonat nist YO 





—— 


Se ee Ce tt 








35940 


THE 25 BAST DELAWARE BUILDING 
CORPORATION, a corporation, 


(Plaintiff) Appellee, 





Ss Mee 
APYEAL 9 a 


MUMICIPAL COURT 
Ve 
JOHN ELLIOTT JENKING, 
(Defendant) Appeliant. 


OF CHIGAaGo, 2, 
270 LABG33 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 


WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OF INION OF The COURT. 

This is an appesl from a judgwent of the Municipal Court 

of Chicago for 12,287.50 and costs entered in an ection brought to 
recover for rent alleged to be due on a lease of an apartment made 
by plaintiff to defendant. On OCotober 29th, 1928, plaintiff obtained 
judgzent by confession in the amount mentioned. On petition of 
defendant the court ordered that the judgment be opened and leave 
given defendant to defend; thet the petition of defendant stend xs 
an affidavit of serits and thet the judgment stand as security. 
After » hesring by the court, the court found thet there was due 
plaintiff as of the date of the judgment the sum of #2,287.50 - 
$2,100.00 for rent and $187.60 for attorney's fees, and allowed 
the judgment te stend as of Setober 29th, 1928. 

The affidavit of werits charges thet the pleintiff refused 
te furnish defendant with elevator service for his family and servant, 
er to furnish protection from the elements which made the premises 
unusable; thet the plumbing in the bathrooms was unsanitary and un- 
usable, and thet the condition of the plumbing caused overflows in 
the bathrooms; that there were no facilities furnished for the removal 
ef garbage; that the pleintiff refused to allow « servant of defendant 
to enter the premises and threatened such servant with violence; that 
because of the rain coming into the apartment, the plaster fell from 
the ceiling and quantities of water came into the rooms because the 
roof of the building wss out of repair, and that the demised premises 

A 


cc 





OAGaE 
* ‘pweeierte eaawaeetd Teaa as es gir 





ale ai ia 


TOD —— o Liege ————— 
— a 
. earn — —* 


— ———— Ge⸗daoroch 


4600 YO: 


‘eEorAd OVS: 


bee eS ysl beLit non tao ie yi. 


-TH00 au7.%O HOXKI wit oRnaV La per “OTTOUY, sm 


trod Leg tetauk edt to taomynut s wort Leegge an et eat * es . 


et tdyuord Ao tton aa ak boretiue wines tne 08.788,,5 rot * * : A 
eben, Seemtzese. oa, De geank.#. 0. 2am 6 of beyetin tex sor 






* —— shone ido tavome ods. mb mt i _ att i 
_ sveel Bae beasco 9d tremgout, od? test bexebzo Piu0o edt tasbastob 
an baste tashasteb to soltitey oft delet phanteb of tus ae he 
Utrun9e as daats toomabus edt todt ban atites te “tivebites ne 
avh exw exod? galt bavot tryoo edt ,ttvoo ad? ye galrond ⸗ xorꝛa 
~ O8.785,8% to me ot saemgbut sie * etab ott To es Vitstele 
bowoile hae ,aeet atyortette tot 08,7852 baa taer sot 06,005, 83 
-B8L ,d#@8 todetod to aa baste ot Imomybul ot 

beavtet ttisalisiaq eda tadt eayrade etinxnem te tivablitts ad? 
,fmevtee bas yliael aid sot eeivise totevele dtiw fasbasteb delmut of 
eesimotg eft shes doidw a¢newatls ei? moxkt aeivoatotq datatst of xo 
“ay hus yiatinesny cow smoordted edt al galdourlg ed? tedd poldeomay 














ai exeitierve beeuse gaidmaig edt to moi¢ibnes ed? godt base ,eldeew 


icvemet od? tot bodatatwt aettiliost on stew etodd tad? jamootdied ed? 
tacbaste® to tanvava » wolle of beswter Tiitaielg oe? tat jegedueg to 
dedt jeonsloiy dtiw tacvtea dove heaetestd? has socimetg odd tetas of 
moxt ilet segealq off ,tnemtraga odt ofal gaimoo alex edt Yo eemened 


edt sauaced amoor add otal omse retew to aoltitaeup bap yatites edt 
seatmet: Beotmeh adt ¢ed¢ bae ,theqet te tuo ave gakbitod ent te toot ; 


%, 


_atektotegteo 4 ROL TAROSIOO | i 


5 
4 
i 
f. 







2 
were altogether unfit, untenantable and unsafe for occupancy. 

It is claimed by defendant that the matters set up in the 
affidavit of merits amounted to « constructive evietion. 

Various witnesses testified for defendant as to the con- 
dition of the premises, but most of the testimony adduced had to do 
with quarrels between the parties concerning s negro servant of 
defendant. Any material testimony of defendant's witnesses to the 
effect that the premises were out of repair and that the service 
agreed to be given defendant was withheld from defendant by plaintiff, 
is denied and declared to be untrue by plaintiff's witnesses. 

A reading of the testimony a¢ shown by the abstrect, 
does not convince this court that the eause should be reVersed and 
remanded for a new trial on account ef the alleged conditions of 
the premises, The court saw and heard the witnesses, and had on 
opportunity to judge of and to pass upon their eredibility. 
| The judgment is affirmed. 

ACPI RMED. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. concuR. 





o¥Saegeese tot steane bre eldainenptay stitav toe : 2 gotte 34 
edt al qu toa atsttem ed? as teatweteh yi bomkals oth rv 
MOlteive avi¢urrteaoe » oF betmveme eer ce te —E 
. mittee edd of a⸗ tnehaetab ot botkitaes eeueontew ewolted itis 
(ob of bed Reambhe yaemtvasd sdf to teom sok: satiabeie oi iia 
to shevted qngedos gaketooage eeitieq ed? seowted slertaup dtiw 
od? of aveneadiw s'inabasted Yo yonitect Letxetam yaa, .tashasted 
: solyres ant gad? bas tiegex to fuo stew scetweny dt ted? teette 
ttatato YW dnshacteb ser bleddtiw, eae tushasteb aevig, od —— 
soeeneatin aMtitaielg yd aurdas ad ot hereineh baa betas .ak 
| stooxteds oct ye aueds ac yaomstea? ent te WPT a 50.56 
“bas heewstor od bivode (enues edt ted? draoo ghd? eondyngo ton aeab 
te anol thace begoits sit to taug29 ae Istxt mea. x mt —* mm 
a⸗ bas has geeqeeatin oda based ban WHR, FOO eat, J eT 7 
i sqekLtdthere xied? Hoq nas of bas Yo, ap — ot Wines. 
shemaltte at tasagby(, Sh i % 1M 
Sen to Gh i te ae Tiatasang 
 HELTRLE hon Cuet wer CUO at 












5 OTUALTIA, 





toga ie ddiw tochenkok Sedereerd 4 
di? geek soheoerety deieuat a te: 
chdmacku wet eee pnd a —— 
— Cy a wales PRD etd Pee Bios teas 

min wee oteterk saberiinn? on eer Sees See rouoondtod ode 
iiminig ods tet} —E te 

potest? bee ao deunteg ede notes ra a 

ket wit Yo omen 


new “Ceten te woidivans tao gablion ott 











36022 ho ig 

HARIETTE L. MARTIN, WRIF OF ERROR 10 / ws 
Defendant in Err : 
Ve SUPERIOR COURT 

DR. ERNEST CHARLES MARTIN, ia) Loe 63 31 
Plaintiff in Errer. COCK COUNTY. 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HALi DELIVERED THE GPINION OF THE COURT. 

By this writ of errer the defendant seeks the reversal of 
a degree for divorce. fhe decree provides for the payment of 25.09 
a week alimony to complainant. The parties were married October 29th, 
1928, and lived together until February 23nd, 1936, when complainant 
ceased to live and cehabit with defendant. She charges in her bill 
that about the time of the separation she discevered that she had 
become infected with « venereal disease, for which she holde defendant 
responsible. Defendant denies the charge, The defendant is « 
physician, pragti@ing his profession in Ghieago Heights, Illinois. 

The evidence about which there seems to be no controversy 
is that in the sonth of July or August, 1923, complainant became 
pregnant; that the parties lived together until February 22nd, 1950, 
at whieh time complainant geve birth to « child and informed her 
husband that he had infected her with = venereal disease, and for 
that reagon she would not live with him any ienger. 

The complainant testified that after she had been pregnant 
for about three months, she beeame alarmed at her physical condition 
and sailed her husband's attention te it; that he gave her tresatnuentsa, 
but ferbade her to consult any other physician; that defendant 
finally sent complainant to a Doctor Giles, who examined her and found 
ean abcess in her vagina, which he attributed to gonorrhesal infection; 
thet she went te a hospital on February 22nd, 1930, the dete of the 
birth of her child, where « Doctor Jamison examined her and he alse 


. \ — 





—— x \ | \ \ \ J 
X HOGA An | a : _ pRETHAM os rns. 
\ | | | store Py ‘tmabastet 
1 aves norma a * ay 
re BO. A be n ere \SITHAK SaasAKO rauum — 
eFTHOD BOO... 4 — wd mieat⸗a : ; 


au SB ck: Wea Tela ini 
— Rae aan 





(SSCL ghS yell beLit sointgd me 

sia »TRUOO BRT FO WOLALSO SAT Can aVidae SAH aorree 

te Seexevet odd exeee gushasleh ed? torre to. stew sisi 
BOGS) to smomyeg oat x0 sebivorq eotoeb edt seotav lh rot | oe my 
aes xodetoo beiviam stew, eelizag od? »fnanteLamoe ot wontLs 4 


* 

Se Se 4 
i 

‘ 

’ 


Seat es 


















jasaislqaoe goede ,08GL hake yxeundet Lidag xodgeyot bovis bas 880k 
titd ted Gk gegtode edt sPaabaet eb atin sidedos ban ovis had mrs 
bad ede tad? bevevecath ede actisteqen outs % ents ode svete tat 
usbasteb sbiot ade dotdy rot ywesseth Leerenor © Atty betestal emoved 
6 et tnehgoted edt egret edt eatqed taabueted soiste — aor , 
ewioniili ,utdgioh ogeoidd al aotenstora wie soho i : . ; : 
yersvetsaes on o¢ of emsan exedt doidw tuod« — * 
emsoed tusnieiqnuoe ,CSGL ,faxgut to eit te déinom off ai Sedt ok 
2O88L yhait yrevrdet Litas tedtsgor devil asitneg odt gadt ¢ romgetg 
tod Remrotat bea biide « of dévid eves —— —* —* oe: 
cot hae ,oesseth Leexvemey « déiw tod betoetal bad ad tedt basdend 
eT9gdol ye mid dtiw evil ton blwow ede aoa as⁊ tet 
— aved bed ade tedie tact heltitass tienielasos ed? ipa 
agitibnoo Leoteydq tod te bemale omaced ode .eijaom sexdt twode tot 
etxontssr? tod eveg af dade gti of soltaetin a! band esset tad belles ban 
tneboroteb sane itetoleyde radio Ws tivesos of ted ebadxok ted — 
wvot bus ted benimexe ofw ,oeti0 reseed « of Snenisiqnos tase eilsase 
pieitestal Lsedtionog of betudiatia od doidw ,eatgey tod ai —E aa 
ad? to soeb odd ,O8CL .ba8S yravxdet ao Aetiqaed # of tow ode tedd 
oels ed bun tod beainexe noainsh totoet « erode — wad Yo dred 

















A 
—* 


* 


CD PORN care ET NC ee CY) ge mw wet 5 


2 

informed her that she had a gonorrheal infection, which also infected 
the child's eyes; that the physicien who attended her at childbirth 
was Doctor Santos, whom she employed at her husband's suggestion. She 
testified thet she had had no sexual relation with any man other 

than her husband, 

Doctor Santos testified to » conversation with complainant 
concerning defendant's wife's condition, and stated that defendant 
had told hia that he, defendant, had the infection prior to his 
marriage, but that he had been cured, Defendent denied that he had 
ever had such en infection, and thet he had had any euch conversetion 
with Dootor Santos. After the charge had been made by complainant, 
and after the bill in this esse was filed, defendant had himself 
examined by another chysician, who testified on behalf of defendant 
in the trial of the cant, and stated that defendant was at that time 
free from any gonorrheal infection, 

Dectors Jamison, Santos and Giles, who examined complainant 
at and before the birth of her chiid, each testified that upon exam- 
ination they had found the gonerrhesl infection in the complainant's 
vagina. Alsé it is in evidence that the baby had the some infection 
of its eyes. 

On the question of the alimony, it is in evidence that 
defendant has had an extensive and luerative practice ss a physician, 
and the trisl court fixed an amount based on such evidence. The 
chancellor saw and heard the witnesses, and apparently desided the 
ease upon the evidence before him as he deemed himself justified 
in doing, snd this court oan see no reason for disturbing the decree 
of the Superior Court. 

The decree is, therefore, affirmed, 

APPIRMED. 


WILSON, F.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR, 


es 


betestai sala doidw .aeifestni feedrrenog 2 bad ade sade sed bemrotat 
dteidhiide te cad bebaette efw asietegde edt daddy jasyo e'blido edt 
edi 8 .molveoguwa e'hasdesd ted tn beyoique ode modw ,eetne? tote] enw 
. patso ann Yue Mtiwisektalor Lnuxea on Bait had ¢de gods BoRtseNes 
eS spnmdesh ed made r 
tiantalewon A9in MSLeseroeded ode ROLTLte0d sotan® xotved | 
tankdsted tadt Segets has .nostibnos etotie attaaineieb gainzeone> 
<o SAE SH cobhe he btowtnd Oa?’ nkd 2aabacten’ (ed Gnd Wid Rhee det 
Bad od todd Bekeed tushasteQ .bovie deed bad- ea tedt ti jeQhteree . 
“polteerévnoo dows ys Bed bed od tedd ban .nottdolal as doue Dak neve 
 Peamtetqmoo yw pbse aed bail eguedo oft cO¥tA sdottae cedoodKbde 
 Sinswtt bed thebastebd .belht esw cean att a2 Lind’ odd tedte fie 
— to theded ae beltitess ody ,aoteteyiiy oddone WhenknaRe 
| gmte told te sow tmehaoteb vest bestete haw yeene edd te Lette ert at 4 
OiOORKt Lavdreotoy yak soxt ovEt 
tnanlsiqnes bemineee ode ,eeliO bee sotnne ynoekmel eremeed: Of 
— * noqu ted¢ beftsteo? does .bibde tei to decid ony oroted bas te 
| etiusrdeignes odd af meitoetod Lesdrretey edd wot bed youd mbktans 
‘goltectal emee oft bed ydet! sift tede eonehave at ee, | eantgey 
dead evey tothe temo (> ye@Ye ett to 
tid? somebive mt at th yyaomtin edt te merseoip edt aD Sorte 
yastoiayde a en sokteary ovighreul ban tvhetota® ir bad ca tiabieteh 
gH? Jeonohtve dose no beend Civil! ne Koxtt ¥evoo Leket od¢ bas 
edt bebLoab ULtawrnges bas jpoceentin sit breed Dan wee tekTesaate 
hotisteut Yiesmid bameeb of am wii? eroded weuabivedde aoa eco 
sovosh eta pibcctess rot Reeser om oe moo temo eitte fue eitob mt 4 
pe Anvet ao keoaum oH to 
—E — * eens · ce 
— eo jodigend 2 of van tele a 
oa ‘nhs bitte cad te J * 
8UOKOD ob — ama —J 08 























36041 
THOMAS E. TALLMADGE and VERNON S. / 


WATSON, partners, doing business 


ERROR TO Va / 
as TALLMADGE AND WATSON, 


Plaintiffs in Error, a eee 
Ve OF CHICAGO. 
GEORGE F. NIKON, 
‘Defendant in Error. 270 I.A. 633° 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 
By this writ of error,. judgment for costs against plaintiffs 
in the Municipal Oourt of Chicago is sought te be reviewed. The suit 

is by plaintiff, an architect, ageinst defendant on an alleged con- 


tract between the parties, by which it is charged that defendant agreed 


to pay plaintiff for services in preparing certain drawings and build- 
ing plans for defendant. On ea hearing in the lower court, the issues 
were found for defendant and the judgment for costs followed. 

The only questions raised here are questions of fact. Reo 
bill of exceptions was filed in the esse. The trial court signed and 
erdered filed a "Statement of Facts and Lew for Review", which was 
filed here as part of the common law record. By order of this court, 
the "Statexent of Feots and Law for Review" was strieken from the 
record of this court, and a motion to vacate the order striking euch 
"Statement of Facts" from the record wes denied. The entire case of 
Plaintiff in error on appeal is prediceted upon the “statement of 
facts and law* stricken from the record. Therefore, there is nothing 
for the court to review. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. CONCUR, 





\ 68 ROMNEY has — 4 
; | st —** Gin cana? 
stort at — ————— 

* 


ee A ae 


X Bite . 
‘| no Lt aoe 


—— etek wet wee 


. «lt Bonde 


— at ——— 





— +2. pentumee — 
ev 88 — 4 SS +4 stored at — ah Sele Reaaey 
——— os yet beLit no tn tad —— * ‘pth teak 

“tatoo aay 46 do taro at aanaviisg — * wrreu 4M 
eth bie de Ley ‘Santas etaoe <ot dsougbut, ⸗.aorao te titw onde « 


five ent “Wewsivor od of #dyuoe et opantdd Ye —— — ete 4 

qi9o beyeiie ae ae tushasteb teatsye stonetions as Aunuaia xd a 4 
serye tisbuyted fed bagrade et ti —2 ——— ode ' 
~bitud hes epatensd ateſros gadceqore me oro trro⸗ rot Bose 


eevee! ent .fruoe sowat oat ai gatresd * Coe .aa⸗ eon 9b 





SPI SD Po ae ee Bee ee a ga 


—— OTTO 






SS me ee oe 


— 





ES — 
——— — 





. oe 


70h 
— 


— 


ices Se pane Se.” Mla By: 
—— — * Reena} ae oe ——— * b rot bau? all i 





= wae ™. i as Date te 
Bete — — Latest en? +040 ott at bextt naw 8 — a to Lite J 


sky dolde . “wolves rot wad ‘has etont * ——— —— borebeg, ] 
—R aldt te rebro we sbronet wal —— ost to * as * 7 


ed? — — aow + gerber Noy) hea! * ree? 30. 





“f° > Oe 










16 dad Sxtiad od? .boined asp broom eas cont ** ta: 
to ftrewstate” ong aoqu ‘beteotheny at Soogee 0 o 
— at oxedt —— biese odd mott modoixta X — 


wets ¢ we tes Gree Pies 








—— —— — 





#3 , ey ys 
js ‘ f . of he LRG ade — 
ehontitts @ tx09 ta4 * —“ oe 

Pe as 3 9 — Bangs ree at 


— E— — ——— peat BE ant? — Paks 


— 
— 


aes 


— 


yee 


i A say ch 9 
——D——— 


f f 
£ ff 


f 4 


ff f ⸗ ; df — — 


APPEAL FROM = / 
i 


PRUBENTLAL LIVE INSURANOE 00. OF 4 a 
@ corporation, f 


(Complainant) sonatas 
Ve 
ARNOLD FENNER, et al., 
Defendants, 





CIRCUIT COURT 


COOK COUNTY. 


On Appeal of 
ARNOLD FENNER, 
(Defendant) Appellant. 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE OOURT. 

On November 8%, 1928, the Prudential Life Insurance Company 
of Americse filed « bill of complaint in the Oireuit Court of Cook 
Gounty in which it is alleged that it had issued an insurance policy 
on the life of one Anna 2. Traczewna, for the sum of $5,090.00, with 
@ provision for an additional $5,000.00 benefit in case of accidental 
death, payable to her estate; that on August 18, 1936, the insured 
had executed an assignment of the policy to Arnold Fenner, one of the 
defendants; thet on March 2%, 1928, the insured died as the result 
of a pistol shot; that defendant, Arnold Fenner, started suit against 
complainant, claiming the entire proceeds of the policy, te wit; 
$10,000.00; that one Josepha Wagner had begun a garnishment proceeding 
against complainant, based on a judgxent sgaingst Arnold Penner, and 
that the Horthwestern Trust and Savings Sank, edministrator cof the 
eatete of Anne %. Traczewna, alias Anna daroszewiez, claimed the 
entire proceeds of the policy for and on behalf of three sisters and 
a vrother of the deceased, 

The bill prays that defendents be required to interplead, 
setting forth their respective claims, and that the court determine 
whieh is the rightful claimant. Arnold Fenner, Josepha Wagner, 


: . 
: * \ \ 
ve as yr. Ls * 








\ Mowe gazats. \ don AW +00 HOKARURKE BAL Jarrenaieas 

4 Ge. —— — 

a Ag 

| — (fasntelqso®) * 

rnuo Treats — 
ar | 

3 ela te * aa GIOWRA 

.xxuuat HOOD 4 dial le 

sataskaet of eae 

SSCL As yell bertt aotniqd Ft naa 


eavos TUT 10 HORNE BST GasuVLina sb aorTeT. wit 
ve aanod eomommenl sth intineherrt ode «888k es redasvol a0” 1 al, 
foot Yo t2e00 thuoeko att mt dutaiqmoe te dild « bolt —ED Yo 
witoa eeastuenk ae bows at bed #2 tadt beyoLis wi af delde ‘sin “ill 
Atte ,00.000,8¢ te ave od? ot semwoxaax? ai anh ano % ates add hn 
Latnebinee to geno at neas⸗ 00.000 548 fonoitibhs as tot aetatveta’s 
herwant edd? ,OR@L .8f teugws rs) tadt jesnies ‘sod of oideves * 
od? to ene «romwey Bionsh of wotsog edt * — ———— aa beduoi 
_ theses odd ce beth borwent ent seed 58 dowelt xo ted@® yea 
‘teulege tive bettote yxemast biome! tanbasteb ted —* — a te 
ithe o¢ vtonlon ade to abandon ordtite ade gate. ’ : 
gatboseotg tnendeltersg a auged bad ron 3H adgevets ea0 * . 
hae , romeo? Slows testnye droxgtart & ao bonsd ,fanctelqned | 
af? Yo totertaintubs ,dast agelvat ban tous? “niséasndézol add fade 
edt bomtelo ssoiweneotel anna satis — * —B—— 

bas etstete oerdt te aded a0 bas wet voilog edt to 1b990 


* — eee 


































vbasiquotal of Hontupe od efanhaeted gndt exyata itd edt 
eninreteh tuveo edt todd bas canknto avitosqset tledt dtzot — 
—J adqeeot ,toneet BiontA .émamddlo Lonttiigit bated doe 


7, Rha! ae — dete 
* Fie 4&3 


a 

Werner Fenner, a brother of Arnold Fenner, and the Northwestern 
Trust and Savings Yank, administrator, were made parties defendant, 
and each filed an answer to the bill setting forth the respective 
Claims, A cross bill was filed by the Northwestern Trust and 
Savings Sank, sdmihistrator, in and by which it everred that the 
asaignuent to Arnoad Fenner was void, and that if not void it was 
given to secure a debt owed by the insured to Fenner, The sdminise 
trator prayed that in the event the court should hold the ascignment 
to be valid, in that it was made as security for = debt owed by 

Anna Z Traczowna to Arnold Fenner, then and in that case thet an 
accounting be ordered. The brother and sisters of the asgured are 
presumably the moving parties in the suit, and among other allega- 
tions mede on behalf of them in the croes bill is one to the effect 
that the assignment of the insurance velicy was made in consideration 
of illicit sexual relations between Fenner and Anne % Traczowna, 
their sister, and is therefore, void. The Northwestern Trust and 
Savings Sank resigned ss administrator and the feliance Trust and 
Savings Sank, administrator de bonis non was substituted. fhe cause 
was referred to a Mester in Chancery ‘to take testimony and to 
report his conclusions of law and fact thereon,* 

The complainant paid 710,000.00, the amount of the insurance 
due under the terms of the policy, to the clerk of the Tireuit Court, 
subject to the order of the court. 

After an extensive hearing, the master reported and found 
the equities of the case to be with Arnold fenner and recommended 
that an order be entered to the effect that out of the moneys deposited 
with the clerk of the court, the claim of Josepha Yagner for 1260.00 
be paid, and thet the balance, less the master's fees, be paid to 
Arnold Fenner. Objections and exceptions to the master's report 
were duly presented, and after «a hearing the court cverruled the 
master and decreed that the entire fund, less the master's fees, be 


ana 
arsieswdiges adi has .senact Bleazs to tedéocd x xvaas a arau 
gitshastek esliuseq shat o1ey stotarteiaiabs Au at wyaivae bane taunt 
ovidooqaas ate Adtot guittee “Litd ‘out de owen ‘Gs ‘hele? dons bas 
bas tout axeteewd¢zoa adt yd beilt saw iste weer A samntede 
adit tact benseve ti doldy qd dae a: sotetieldtabs a Hennti agatess 
wew ti Bioy gon tk fed? Saw shige ‘gor genus | himaacA of teoaagives 
~ginioda ef? «steanret o¢ Becwent ed? yl bers tdab « emoen oF mandy 
taenciens edt bind Biuods trsoe off taove oft mt tedd boyetq toterd 
ed ews fob « tot ytiauees es ahem ena dh ted? mi .Siiev od of 
as ted copy godg..ng, iy Ait nakpeay' loots of savenoer? <i anna 
ove beuweae add to exedete bane tedtesd edt — — 
~agelis usdéo gags Gre ,éhime edt si a ag yadves att % ; 
footie od? of awe al [iid eeore od? mk mod? to BLaded mo — 
aottersbience at ebam san yilog somstwent od to astumnkaan edt Rede 
esowenoat? 43 mand has xoans! aeeted anoiteler Lauxbe thoLile Ye 
bus tewe? ateteewdtrok oft . .bhov ,eretered? at bao yxetede ahede 
bos tavet souaile? edt tne sotertadatebs 2, bomgteot, iat egaived 
seuae od? .botutitedve sew gay — gh todettelalmba inst sgetved 
ot bas yromitart. octet ot! yreomsd® at setesk # of dopeslen war 
*eiooredt #et baa wal to enelaufemees ekd dtoger 

oonenaedd ous to dasome O42 400e900,0i8 Bbmg dmantadqmedoedh 600 
eftrad tiset st edt to dxele sat ot .yetiog ad? te ammet out reba enh 
, : staseo add to tebre eat — 
Seuet bax — thtacm oft gakused eviesotas aa ce a ee 
babnammoest has taRtet Dlons ddim od of saeoowdt Yo — 
etisoreh ayenes alg to deo sont toartto— aft 08 hexetee ed “obto ae | 
00.082) cot teage” sizenot to mislo edt ,tign edt to dtete — 
ot biog od ,200% e'tatsam ed? seed .sommied oA? tadt fue ghhaqued 
froqor atrotesa edt of mwottqwons na aaettontde cman aie a 
edd belurreve txwoo 94% gatzoad s comke bas <hetawaeny Yuh wKow: 
ot’ jaeee a'xetaam od? aeet abeust eritme oct éadt deoreod bas * 








* 
— * = 
ee ee — 


Se err ae he 













— 





3 
paid to the Reliance Trust and Savings jienk, administrator de bonis 
non of the estate of Anna Z. fraczowna. It is from this decree 
that the apyesi herein is taken, 

In Complainant's presentation of its case on appeal, it 
is not denied that Anna %. Traczowna had assigned the insurance 
polley in question to the defendant, Arnold Fenner, and it is not 
denied thet under the decisions of the Illinois courte she had the 
Tight to make such assignment, and thet Fenner bad the right te take 
under it. It is not claimed that the assignment was aude under 
duress, there is no proof that any undue infiuence, was used in pro- 
curing its exeeution, and there is no proof that any illicit relations 
existed between the parties. The proof shows that the assignment 
is in writing, and was made and executed in theoffice of the ineurance 
Company. There is no proof that there wos anyone present at the time 
of the execution of the document other than Anna Z. Treezownsa and 
the agents of the insurance company. The assignment is in rvords 
and figures as follows: 

ASSIGHMERT OF POLICY 


eee 
ee & 

Por Value Received, I hereby assign and transfer unto 
Arnold Fenner of 1741 ¥. Washington aris.” 28 the 
policy of insurance known as fio. $0397 isaued 

TRE PRUDENTIAL 1LNSURANGE courant’ OF AMERICA, 
a the life of Anna 2. Traczowna of 1450 W. Chicago Ave., 
eago, iil., and ali dividends, now due and whieh om 
ae Shezeen, and aii benef: ; Tan 





et te condi: Said policy, r 
rules and — F said Company. This assignment is 
made expressiy subject to the lien of the Company on said 
policy for any indebtedness of the insured or any pricer 
assi to asid Gompany existing at the time this assignment 
is filed with seid nage and in rene J rie of the 
eaid policy there shall firet be deducted ali such indebted- 
nes s0 

Each person a this assignment represents to said 
Company that he (or she) has attained to majority according 


| 2 

ginod sh sotertsiniads ,tha! sygatvs? ban teu? somabkion of¢ of Bieq 
seroeb eidd aext ef #1 .ommendert .2 eond to States ote 26 oR 

: * | - sitedet ot abeted Letoge sit seit 

$2 ,laeqhs mo Seee bei to noltetaneen: OPeanksigques ‘al °°” 
Seneriant edd beagices bad etwosoex? 18 pata daite heiaed tea et 

fon al ti bas ,ronuet HioataA ,eeabeates et? of abltesup al Yolieg 
edt bed Ste abtiod atonslil sis to saeieload edt cobaw dedd BORRED - 
oct ot tdyit oft Bad reneel tede bas .teomtgioss dove eae OF 2egke 
Tob edem anw Memtyiesn odf Phdd Semhalo Gow wh sf #4 TORR 

— ai bos gow aacoustal MOYER. subaw eee ted? Towra ox ef Teds ,evdtisd 
eaoitaler tholiLk yas tedé teosg on O12 Sxedé bun ~aokdvoots att gatehe 
tuensgivas sdd fol? ewols Yootg edt Jeettes off mborted beratze 
oneruant off to woiYtoed? ui betyooxs haw ahem aow bak .gattite WE * 
anit eff te tuseorq snoyne eow oredd Pade Yoore ba ‘eh oxi? ‘vee 
hae saworoer? 2 anna ned soddo #osmrbob eft to weltwaexe ed} Ye 
abrow at at —— edt” —— wonerwent oft te atnegs eft 
, — — —— 

“pore Ace — — ve See 











—* 4 wer ss 







; pi mmr —* "YHA — 
—X es, Oaht be 
ae ine wae — 3 stunt 
| Aas iatet 3 hed oat 
HEvh a 30 Bak O04 Bl AE: —— tT hoes he. tomer 

ii salgoubensuaiie Berunal a1 of enon Beh 

— —— — 9 


— tnduarg loose. + —— ne TR ASM — —* SES sar 
he eee at Bcc 
rads to ths rise seu galden at baz yasimod oi 
dows lin beteubeb ed tat? 


* pe ho gal "oe baabesée oad 44 aoen 


“iste aah ged ae 















to the laws of the State or Provinee in whieh he (er she) 
resides, or thet he (or she) is empowered by law to exeoute 
this form even though majority has not been attained. 


Witness my hand and seal this 18th day of August, one 
thousend nine hundred and twenty six. 


(Signed) (SWAL) 


I hereby certify that the above scsignment was signed 
in my presence by the insured under the policy mentioned 


therein. 
(hemed) isco usstile suite 
Menager, Superintendent, Assistant 


Superintendent or Agency Organizer, 
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 


in accordance with its rules, as stated above, has retained 
the duplicate of this assignment. 


(Signed Edward D, Duffield 
Per___lMo 


aeae 


Newark H. J. August 27, 1926. 

The evidence discloses that Anns 2. Traczownsa was conducting 
® conservatory of music, and that she had employed arnold fenner to 
give lessons on the violin to her pupils, and that she had agreed 
to pay Fenner a salary of 860.00 per week beginning Msreh, 1922; 
that at or about the date of the assignment Anne 3. Traczowna had 
become indebted to Fenner for a considerable sum fer salary due him, 
and thet Fenner had advised her that he was about to leave her employ; 
that through the intereession of mutual friends, and at the urgent 
request of Anna Z. Traczowns, Fenner was induced te remain in her 
employ, and that she voluntarily and without any solicitation on 
Fenner's part, assigned to him all rights in the poliey of insurance 
in question. 

Among these testifying were Filbert Ku. Russell, Superinten- 
dent of the Prudential Insurance Company, whose name is atteched 
te the assignment as a witness, and who certified thereon thot it was 
signed by Auna Z. Traczowna in his presence; also Brune Albert 
Reichel, 2 salesman employed by the insurance company. ‘ussell was 
produced as « witness by the administrator, and Reichel by Arnold 


Fenner. 


* 
(ede to} od doide ai eonkvesd to pg ede bait fe ewal od? of " 
een oF % ayoUms 8 Fa 
— —— ton excl go ome my dgwedt ie oe” — 


— ——— ‘to ea eid? Teen Bus baad yo eeeatay = 
yeh oxie Yinew? fins beshand gale po pice 





hang ie Tene 090 F * qioved 2 
——— —* ont nl 4 eens” 


wig 





gi a: ¥ Ag utes igi. . § J dal 


ae roy 


‘hOteiua VO Tadtwod MOMARveRT ——“ may 


* 
— ‘era ne 


g Pt — eid “eee § . SE PELE S eee. spe 
< - , 2 J 








ose 88 : 

putvoubson « now sire a0 T ey saith ‘tate esvolioelh 4 pavbive ome. 
| oF raat BLomts beyoique bad ode tad? fan otesm Xo quod s 
beetys bed ede ted? bon ,eliquy ted of aiioly ed? mo sxousss, orks 
{880 toned gatautged Xone req 00,088 te ytekee » xaauon yeq oF 

had amwoxoer? .3 sani inosagtess ot 20 teh 9d tvode a9 tn dad? 
watd auh yates sa2 mue eidetehienge « tok Teaael of betdehat emooed 
{yoiqme sted eveel of teoda saw od tadd r00 beaivbs bed reenel dads bax 


enensy oat aa baa sehen —B—— 








PRA 








Bionta {S Leiteten’ has: “toventeiedmbs a aca mee 5 
z 


Russell testified thet in the month of August, 1926, Anne 
%. Traezowna cnlled at the office of the insurance company and 
stated to the witness in substance that she owed a music teacher 
a considersavle sum of money, and that she desired to make sure he 
would be protected in enxse of her death, and for that purpose she 
desired to assign the ingurence poiicy to Fenner; thet she said 
nothing about the emount ef the indebtedness until the witness ques- 
tioned her, and that she then told the witness thet at thet time 
it amounted to @3,000 or $3,000, All the premiums on the insurance 
policy were paid by Anna 2. Tracozownea. 

Bruno Albert Heichel testified that as agent of the insur- 
anee company he had delivered the policy to Anna % Traczowna, 
collected the premiums when due, and that in about the month of 
August, 1926, he had « conversation with her at which time she told 
the witness thet she was indebted to Penner, her business partner. 
Reichel further testified thet if was upon his advice that Anna 7. 
Traczowna made the assignment of the insurance policy te Fenner, 

the policy was in the possession ef Arnold Fenner 2t the 
time of the death of Anna %. Traezowna, and it was he and tie brother 
who made the proofs of her desth to the insursnce company. 

The assignment was executed in eae 1936, the decedent 
died on Mareh 28, 1928, Fenner remained 444 teacher until her 
death, and there is no evidence of any further payments by Anna 
Z. traczowns to Fenner. 

Several witnesses testified that Anna %. Traezowna had 
stated to them that she felt greatly indebted to Fenner, and that 
she had made the assignment to Fenner of the entire interest in the 
insurance policy, and that in ease ef her death she desired him to 
have the entire amount of any money paid thereunder se thet he might 


He 


tole ko omad Gee ae é 
sts wos (iatgeh ta thane ale ai eade taaeiteee tenia 
hes yaaquco aon rs ata ot te oostte oda se belies ‘sawosoest — 
redoned o aun ⸗ Sono ode tats eometedin ab sanadle edt of betete 
ed ome ease oF sortaoh ote tent bas eston Ye aug sidarsbienon 2 
ade seoq tir; tadt sot bas ,dtcoh ted to Seeo as betostetd ‘od ‘bvor 
blow ede sade jreanet ot walog omrtient eff micas ot bexiee® 
Ren avontiv ott iLtaw seonbotdebat ‘ous to devona ef¢ tueda patdten 
aul? todd $8 ted? sacmtty ‘ode biot mode ode ort bas rod bonote 
sonexwent ed? no — ott BLK — 600,84 ‘ot begowons es 
~queak ed? to taegs se oat bask sean. Sadaial | aau ta ‘ome 








eMiwosoett »k aad oF Yoilog ads boxoviieb bad * — i 


ae — 
_, 20 doom eds suede ak stadt bas nau oral eins L9G oat, De an 
bios arte out? foade ts ⁊on tie wolteexevnon a bad od 0884 i touge 
sreateag essataud xen TORE of bosdena: esw ‘eda seus _ saontie | 


Ngee 3 
of sana tae — eid Roqe Sem oe feds boit teed xedomut 


j ° i od . 
* reanot ot yeAieq onstered 7 te tuenugtees edt eben on aawesoez? 
“oft te xonnei bionta to odenseeos osé — per obieg. * 







* 


ae: 
xedtoxd eke bas ad ase ta baw eanoronn? 2. sah ae dea est * — 


xaeguot sonotuead exe of depen aed to story ode _sbem oy, 
tavbsesb edt 080. apeapes. ak betwoexe aan omer J a edt rn 


zed Lttay rtadosod ea\dtae Denisa — 288 a fal mp bean, 


sank YS etwamyer rodteut yar to ondebive oa et oxsdd bas, 


| — 
bad sawoxoeat * anak tnd bottitent eossoatin soseres ew 

| todd baue ,reaae% ot besdebar Miteorg tier ade rods | most ot betses 
odd ai tueretal exitno edt to Tonae ot nomigivan ¢ ong * on * 
ot mtd bettasb ede Atosb aod bd ease ak tate, Bae s' : 


enc eS ae a eS Ore 
tigis od ted? oe robaunr otis bheg. venom we to | zauoa⸗ AY, oft oved 


























sce 





6 
continue to conduct the conservatory of ausio started by her. This 
evidence is not contradicted, 

The important matter for this court to consider and deter- 
mine is the intention of the assured, Anna % Treegowna, et the 
time she executed the ossignment of the policy te Fenner. The 
evidence, including the language used in the assignment itself, is 
to the effect that the woman intended that upon her death, Fenner 
should have the entire proceeds of the policy. The master saw and 
heard the witnesses, and had an opportunity to pass upon their 
oredibility, and while his repert and conelusions are net controlling, 
this court is of the opinion that in this exse they should be given 
great consideration and credit. 

Thé conclusion and judgment of this court, is that from 
the evidence edduced, it is apparent thet in executing the assignment 
of the policy in question it was the intention of Anna 2%. Traczowns 
that upon her death the entire proceeds from the insursnce peliey 
should be paid to Arnold Fenner. It is the judgment of this court 
that after the payment of the Yagner claim and the master's fees 
herein, the balance of the fund deposited with the clerk of the 
Circuit Gourt by the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America 
on account of the policy of insurence in question, be paid to the 
defendant, Arnold Fenner, and it is ordered that the decree be 
reversed and the ceuse remanded with the direction te the Cireuit 
Court that it enter a decree in conformity with this opinion. 


REVERSED AND REMANDED 
WITH DLRECTIONS, 


WILSON, P.d. AND HEBEL, J. GONOUR. 


oe eS 


a 

eis nod i xe bostate eum * worarxvrno⸗ ont reubase ‘ot rene 
| : — ~|bedodbartnoe ton * — 
—— — aide sot tatdom taatroqut ‘oat | 
edt te earons ax f sand ,beiwese ait to noktnotnt ‘add of onda | 
edt Aenasi ‘ot yotlog edt to dneumphées of bodes * 
at Dont Samples edt oi bow ageuyant ‘edd yntbsloat .eone 
‘roanet “steed cori foo tat abae ted aware eas taa⸗ teatte edd C 
bas wen roteam od? “ynilog avid te aboeoon, onttne att vad — 
24⸗ fogs sacy oF vi daudron.0 me bad bate edncontie ‘edd bread 
aaiiiontaes ton ote “ecietaulonao ‘bas ‘x00 ‘pad eitie bas “ovebiadl t 


— — vous eane wats 4 ak todd aotates ad te ab treo att 
J 
agen 





A i 






















: ott ‘taste at | fu09 aisit te anosseat, baw aod uLonoo 
tuspagtens ods gattuowes ah tad auoꝛ eaas "ah th ——*— ours 
sawasannt * ncn Yo nokanotat ote now at t moseney aby qobte 


fuo0 Bidd to tuomybert edt eh at * ilar . 
| et nen it so ea le nt 


7 od bhoa ined abd w OUD ak A te me ware dis eee 
‘ed saxoeb off godt Berobvo of 24 bas —————— — 

tivorl0 odd of noktoorth ode Asin bebasmer ot we — 
— olds stan — a pay gl * Payor # oe a 








Saga aua cus aaeaaven 
we 2 ee 5 ABROTRO ARES MORI»: 








f f , 
36068 f f 
MORRIS I, KAPLAN, / \ 
& ; 
f o 





v 
APPEAL FROM 
IDA BD. BURT, 
HUNICIPAL COURT 
Gn Appeal of 
PAUL BROGCGLO, Oonservater of the 
Estate of IDA D. BURT, Insane, 
) CF CHIGAGO. 
Appeiiant, 
bia 701 82 4 
WORRIS I. KAPLAK and CENTRAL SEPUBLIG 2 LAs Ve 
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, a Gorporation, 
Appellees. 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINICH OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of 
Chicago, denying the motion of Paul Grocecolo, conservator of the 
estate of ida 0. Burt, insane, to set aside 2 judgment agoinst 
defendant, Ida 0. Burt, for £1,009.00 and costs entered on August 
Slet, 1928, alee to set aside a judgment in the same proceeding against 
the Centrel Trust Company of Illinois, successer te the Bank of 
America, garnishee, for the sum of $1,047.80 and $32.00 costs, entered 
duly i7th, 1929, both judgments being in favor of plaintiff. 

On Hey 22nd, 1928, Morris Kaplan filed suit in the Municipal 
Gourt of Chicago against defendant, ida D. Gurt, for the sum of 
$1,900.00 fer alleged services rendered as Attorney-at-law. Onthe 
game dsy he filed an affidavit for attachment, in which it was 
alleged that the defendant was a non-resident of Cook County, «nd 
thet her address was unknown, that she could not be found, and that 
she was coneéaling herself so that process could not be served upon 
her. in addition, ail the ususi sllegstions contained in the affi- 
davit of non-residence were set forth, and further that the affidevit 
wae to be used for the surpose of procuring an attachment against 


} 


A) \ J osha x azn 


* — Pima 1 
* 
wits * a 4 


FANG) LAT OL RUM 





SHi- ,~ Otani Lee 


vOR45TNO TS 


hgd..AL-OFS- 





Uta Ra Le OS ae 


“plaauake dantuzo ‘bye 5 ‘ei nye ‘RO 
_ahtodd ntogTey, 8 Ana uac ——— awa Wad, 


; Ree LLergh ES weens — tho 





sel we ys belt aoiaig®d — 


te tuo Seqkelawt edt te sebto ag aoxt Leogge mses whe 
edt to toterteeaoe .elosoer! Jaa4 te avigom odt palyaeh .ogat 

_. tantege tataghut.« bles fea, of ,aneagh, »fxat a abd F —— 
teuysh ao doredas atnge bas 09.090,L5 rex gf tul, 0 abt ,tandavted 
stings gutbeerers. anae of? ol taomghy, 6 abtes 290, of oude .38GL, .tpdg 
te Ane’. edt of sosegcous ,elossiil te yueqned taut? Lexgaed, outs 
berefae ,ateco O0.80h has O8.700,L8 to mye edt tot ,oodn » enkrse, 
 sttétntelq te yeveh at gated ataemghul dod PPS, OVS, xy 
Leqintaut edt at tivm boli? aaiqgak adztot .APOL ,baSE Yak AO. gs ny 
to. mve edt sot owe. abl ,tasdasted tents *— 

off a aweirda-yoriotts ae borebaer eopivsen Dagelle Tot W600, 

















acy ti doidy at ,taomdectéa toY diysbitts me belit od ysbomae 
hae ,¢tno0 soot to tusbieor-aom # sew ttehasteb odd tad? begelt 


tead¢ Sae ,fawot ed goa hiseo. edw todd ,xwomdews gow eaothbs sod, tede 











noqy bovree sé fox Dives exscerg dest os tisexed ga tae ew ode 
~httn sd¢ ai boulesaoo asolssgeiia Lauay ode iia smatttine at * 
tivebsvte edd tade rodétwt baw .dtr8) dee ‘oxen oomobee “ye 








—— tnoatontte ae vataudora to eeoqtug ost wo hs owen ig 








ao ae ep: uci ‘ 


.78900 DHT TO HOTNIGO BRT — ens ‘he. 2 hci 


2 
the defendant. On the same day, the attachment iasued and was 
served on the Sank of America, as gernishee. The Sank of America 
entered its appearance on May 29th, 1928, and on August 6th, 1928, 
the defendant, ida ». Burt, by her sttorney, filed an appesrance 
and an affidevit of merite in and by whieh she denied liability. 

On August 21st, 1928, 2 he»ring wos had before the court, on 
the statement of claim and affidavit of merits, the issues were 
found in favor of plaintiff and « judgsent entered agsinst the 
defendant for $1,000.00 and costa of suit; also at the same time, 
the Genk of America, garnishee, was ordered te answer the attachment, 
which it did on September 10th, 1928, and stated that at that time 
there was due from the garnishee te ida 9. Burt a eum sufficient to 
pay the amount claimed by plaintiff. On September 26th, 1928, 
defendant's motion for - new trial was overruled. On June 24th, 1929, 
the Bank of America, garnishee, obtained leave to file an smended 
answer, and on June 24th, 1929, the Central Trust Company of Iilinois, 
gernishee, with which the Henk of America, garnishee, had become 
eonsoldiated, file@ an amended answer, by whieh it alleged that prier 
to the service of the summons upon such garnishee, to wit: in the 
year 1925, Ida b. Burt had been declared to be of unsound mind, and 
that at the time of the entry of the judgment herein ageinst seid 
Ida 0. Surt, no order had been entered restoring her to reason, but 
that subsequent te the entry of such judgment, through a proceeding in 
Gounty Court ef Cook County, she hed been restored to reasen, «end that 
at the time of filing the supplemental answer, Ida 5. Burt was legally 
competent and prayed thet because of leek of jurisdiction ever Ida 
D. Hurt, the judguent entered herein was void, ond that the g=rnishee 
be dismissed out of the csuse. 

On July 17th, 1929, the court ordered the supplesental answer 
of the garnishee stricken and entered judgment ageinst the garnishee 
for #1,047.50 and costes of the preceeding. Thereafter on Jh&ky 27th, 


— ie 
— 


new has bouwel tavmdestis eft ,yeb oune oft a0. .snahapted adt 

soizems Yo task od .eoreianeg on ynetrems Yo dned edt mo bovnbe 

.80@L it@ taogw’ ao baa ,986L .deee yl ae sonatascen etl borotae 

onneteaiys ae beltt 2 Yeates se sod yt 0 asbaet 9b ead 

Uthlicals belweh ade cseide yo baa oi ativan te ets de aes * 

ne ,fxweo edt etoted bad sew qtitced # (genet tats Sema, ae 

exer soveat edt ,etines te tivebitte tans miele to 2 odd 

gat? temtege beretae tnowghwt © bee Tritakaig te nove? at ‘howe 

| 062d omen oft #0 oaks {tie Be ateoo han 00.000 .i), mot sonia 
aitamdondts ed9 tswane of baysbheo ecw sboteletes .wolesak te — oat 
owt ted? te todd Setate bax +8502 ~HPOL cecimetqe? ao Bib oh Hoke 

ot tansolltie ine > dand 2 GbE UY oedetaray edt mont eub axe onocit 
eO8EL ABE rodmosqed a Titatasa W bonted ) taivoma sd yaq 

08eL .ddbe eat AO .beLurreve way inate won otter — 
bobveme as eLl% af event henietdw ,eedeiotoy 42 | e ade 
aaioakiil to qocmad teutt Lontned od? BREE AINE one ao ‘ban — 
——— hed ,sedetatey sobrsut to knot ant dobdy —— Sede: sete 

“soley ted? begetia 4 dotde yi ,tewame Sebmome ne Badd —X 90 

add xt itie of wsedelnray dove moqu emoniue eit te solvxen ont of 

bas ,baim bawonay to od ot hetelood weed had full a abt eer seo 

bkee fantege sisred Sremebist: adt to grins edd to onae wee te tte 

tud — ot xed — —— ——— ‘mod bed — * re * * 





















E CSET ALS —— er. ot ee 


Cileget aaw ‘dua id abt’ .towens pert id odd 
abl Yov0 notsothatnut, te desk to vauos ve ‘aide vets baw tase — 
sefatarey Ott tad? ban * Aair⸗ happier Heron d. 


uy 





ae : 


idee eet ao redtasredt —— oe q —— 


3 
1929, the record shows that the judgment against the garnishee was 
satisfied in full. 

On October 27th, 1950, there was filed in this cause by 
Paul BSroccolo, conservator, (presumably under Section 89 of the 
Practice Act) a petition in which it is alleged among other things 
thet the petitioner is the legally appointed and acting conservator 
of Ida 5. Burt; that the preeeedings in the tivnicipel Sourt ef Chieage 
herein and heretofore recited were had; that at the time of the 
institution of the suit in the Municipal Court the defendant was 
insane; that on February 14th, 1914, she hed been adjudged insane by 
the County Court of Cook County and was ordered to be and wae committed 
to the State Hospital for the Insane at Sunning, Illinois; thet on 
March 20th, 1929, an order waa entered in the Jounty Court of Cook 
Geunty finding that she hed been restored to sanity, when as a aatter 
of fact on March 20th, 1929, she was still insane, and that on July 
24th, 1929, after another hearing in the County Court of Cook Sounty, 
she was again adjudged inesne and was ordered committed to the 
State Hospital for the Insane at Jecksonville, lilineis, where she 
now is. 

It is sileged in this petition thet Ida BD. Burt had and has 
& good defense to the seotion brought by plaintiff in that there wae 
no legel contract entered between the parties because ef the insanity 
of the defendant at the time of the making of the slleged contract 
for legal services, said to have bean made between the parties, snd 
because no legal services were ever rendered by plaintiff for 
defendcnt, ida 4, Surt, and that he never represented her in any suit 
or proceeding or any other matter. The petition preys that the judg- 
ments be quashed, the suite dismissed, and thst plaintiff be ordered 
to return to the Central Trust Company of Illinois the sum of 
$1,479.60, with interest thereon from Juiy 16th, 1929, st the rate 


of 5% per annua. 


* 
gaw 9¢4einrey odt ten tegs — * — od? “Fouts “wrod wae ont ores 
(et ouneo wid? ad beltt cow oredy¥ — bani *edoted — ot 








agnivy "e¥re Biome begertte wt #2 do tos 
 sefewesenos gaitee baie betwionqe yLlegel ect et tetoltiteq edt tate 
ogsolt te Pene0 Lettemnwl ont mt egatheenoud odd tede pout WW sbT to 
eit to emit od¢ ga tod? ybod erew hetiosy stototered bas stored 

‘eew tambmateb edz trot Ieqielavl ody al Sie oft to aokeusheas 

qo Greet begbutbs mood oad ode hiCK MOOT Yeawtsot Ao dad jomsedll 
ett innoo new bas od of berehso ecw baw Yue dood Yo Pred yeawod and 






no ted? yetoukPty ‘ightaaie te Sabent oy to¥ Kediqeon etate odd od 





Sood te dwa0 yee ont al oerosne bow xébro we {ORL (dtOe ae: 

— 2 ae wedw yyetnes OF Beeeibesr weed had eile tatt garbalt yinue 
hie sd Goitd Bee omeakt Litte eew ode yeser ,azoe ‘sien’ na’ oun’ % 
gyiawe® sooo to Fevod Ytavod edd af gabend andtowe Testa \ehes (MISE 
ct dnanmmadiatame trend sondern barns owe ie 
eds oxsde —— — — — te re⸗ — tiqoow 
F fascias —— Bie al 
and bet hed Saud .0 ebt tadd moby ivoq “aiat at ee —— 
wew wrod? tnd at Tetley yd diguord Okfos ed? oF Stadion’ booed 
Yiineeet ad? to odyeoed aerdteq of? noowted ered to fontttos Loyal ‘om 
Poortads degetts edt Te yuittan edt Ye omit od? on sashastod ‘aad to 
bas yvottraq off seowdsd shen aned avert ot Blam ‘sens’ foged et 
vie Lega 6m — —— 























rot Ytitetsiq yt bherebnet rove erée aéoter 
five Ye wk xed beddeeerget aoven od dade bas strat, @ att abate et 
abut ont tadd eyexg mostitsy oft Jeetzen tedto Nia xe “pat esvore xe 
berebro a Ytentely tod? dus ,doveinat® ative ont ,boiteniip od wins 








aN a te : 
OS ee — 


te nse edt stomt tit to winged ‘Fauxt tottane or of ‘axuter of a 


eter eds * anes warned eins * nooreds teors. 


‘ : ng 
r . Ks * * ae oe 
ey ERR — he « oY : 2 { af 5 oe Mie au ts eae 





On Maroh 3, 1932, the court entered an order denying the 
prayer of the petition, and it is from this order that this appeal 
is prosecuted, 
In the record, there sppenrs an affidavit by Louis K. Dembo 
to the effect that the defendant was charged with an assault with a 
deadly weapon on Morris I. Kaplan (presumably the plaintiff herein) 
on July iSth, 1929; that the cause came on for trial, was submitted 
to a jury, and that the jury found that at the time of the alleged 
assault, to wit; July 15th, 1939, Ida 0. Burt wae insane, and that 
she was acquitted of such charge. 
fhe above all appears from the common law record filed herein. 
After the common isew record was filed in this court, an 
additional record was filed in the cause, containing what pyrports te 
be a bill of exceptions, which eonsists of the petition filed and the 
Dembo affidavit. In the certificate attached to the “bill of 
exeeptions*, the court recites, “hich was all the evidenee heard in 
that behalf," qo further evidence (if the petition and affidavit are 
evidence) is shown to have been offered in support of the petition. 
From anything that appears in the record, neither the plaintiff nor 
the garnishee were given notice of any hearing te be had on the 
petition, nor any opportunity to present their defense, if they had one. 
In Miteheii v. Esreckgon, 250 111. App. 508, this court said: 
"hile appellant averred in her motion that the fact 
that the said Joseph Hitchell was insane at the time of the 
trisil was not known to the court or the judge who presided 
at the trial, yet she offered no evidence in support thereof, 
That was an essential elesent and without proper proof thereof 
she would not be entitled to sny relief under Geetion 89 of 
the Practice dct, Cahili's St. Gh. 110, Par. 89. 
A motion under that section of the statute to set aside 
a j nt for an error of fact must set up and rely upon 
such fact or facts as do net appear upon the record and ore 


unknown to the court, and which, if known, would have pre- 
Gluded the rendition of the judgment. People v. Hoonman, 276 
he m amounts to « decisration in the nes 


os 





& 
odd gaiyaos tabts as heretae Siwed edd 8004. 4S dew ado 
Lasqua eid? ted? cebto aide wovt wl 22 bme —— le teers 
f pees peat  sbetgoesetg ef 

edged .H giwed ye tivehi tie as ete ouga e1ede ,ereoer ed? af... 
& Sie tiuaeun aa dtiv begrede ew taskeetob edt tart — 
{aiened ttitniels ond yYidemveows) asiqak si vsti me agen yibaah 
_ kettindue ane yiaitt aol ge ona saeee-ods tadd (eREL gatas yot ae 
begelia edé to omit sit ta tod? Ravet yeoh edt dade bee yiewh 2 ot 
tent bas yauewak etw tru .¢ abd .@RGL ydeOl ede (athe of ¢aieeces 
. -« pagrado ewe Me Retélepes gow ef 
atoted boli? Mover wal mano edt nox? examyes Le avede ent pio 





ne test etdd of SLi? eae deooet wal memndn mle xegtA 6 
ot etroqtey tude gaintetaes yeenee odd ab Soli? now beoost ts ey e 


xt haw DOLIT mottttey eit to etedunoe doidw .eioteqeoxe WO LLhd eed 


to iLid* oct ot Boteatts otaoktitete ote ak re 





ah btaed senebive eff Lis wae dokde® yosttooy éxseo edt . “en 

ete tivabétbe bas mottiteq od¢ t2) sonedive tedtant of 9 tdeded pede 

-aeititeg odt to ¢toqque at Sexette aoe ovad oF awode af (eenebive 

son Ttitntele edt cedtien ,bss0eT off Ai ateeqaqe ted? goiddygs mock 

edt no bed wd of gatteed ye Yo eokton aorta exew sodeterey odt 

9 bed Yad? YL ,oameted sleds tassorg o¢ Ydinutvouge — — 
thine sue widt BOR aqgqd «LEE —— ——————— 


+ feet eft tadé a en tod at * 
ed? to eon Bs od¢ ¢@n oneent sew Lf | eens, 
_ Readies ode egbst oft se seuco od? Of awomd ton ecw . 
etootett ¢ttogqewe ni sonebive — —— oda sey — 
— per calles ‘we ot beithene ad 5* — 
ae 1 ts 4 we NOG © 
o@8. sted (Oli MO sah Bhilidad ., tok aoivoasy 


me" hg —— ot te 28 —X eee se: 
ot se Seum teat xONTe me | 
was bas boost ot oui te —— 
ery eyed bivow meen Ee ‘gf — 
— —— 


» “oF beBasdat * 


















* 








Fire & Uarine Insurance Go., 25% Ill. App. 102 in passing upon the 
eharacter of a proceeding brought under Section 89 of the Prectice 


Act, this court said, page 106; 
"The practice, upon the motion which has been substituted 












by the statute for the writ of errer corsm has been 
pointed out by the Supreme Gourt in a number of cases. Mitehel) 
Ve 187 Ill. 452; Gramer v. Lilinois Sommerciai ver 









260 lll. 516; People v. 276 


Boonen, 276 111. 750; Chapman v. North 
J i. — 333 * . a ve. 
og pital OS Ill. 147. *hile the statute as substitut 


a motion for the common-law writ of error nobis, these 









ot 
eases held thet the essentisis of the proceedings upon the 
motion are the same ag they were at common law upon the writ. 
In the case last cited, the Suprese Court held that the errors 
ef fact which could be made the besis of a writ of error at 
Common law and which can now be made the basis of a sotion 

te set aside and vacate a judgment under section 89 (Oahill's 
Ill. St. Gh. 110, Par. 89), were such ag ‘referred to the 
Giaeability of parties, the incapacity of the plaintiffs to sus 
or the disability of the defendants to defend, such az infency, 
eoverture, death of one or more of the parties, death of a 
joint party, insanity. Any of these facts, if known te the 
court, would prevent the entry of « judgment, and it is te 
error arieing out of lack of knowledge by the court of such 
facts thet the writ of error cores — er the motion which 
is its substitute, applies. * T s York on the Practice 
ef the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas wae first 
published in 1790, and no suggestion can be found in it or in 
the later editions, of shich there have been many, thet any 
other questions of fact than these of the charseter mentioned 
in that work, which have been already cited, constituted the 
basis for a writ of error sorsm nobiss" 


There are allegations te the effect that at the time of the 
making of the alleged contract, and «et the time the judgment wes 
entered, the defendant was insane, but act one word of proof of such 





> ods i 
— 












9— — 


—P— 
af 


_ weddort ont te @8 gotta? tebas — — 8 * —— 
($80 agen ,biae ausen aida ofA 


bedud ifedue weod ear doade soliton ed a @Od: odt* 

A re AL is Pear gee 
J * . oe 
ty otis. — —* er ae 










, —— — ——— fig ne, i 
86 vorrs to tiew w om 
eat aequ seathaaee vot edt Ye eiaisaesee, odd. tae er eonee ..., 
ot iex eat n HOC om goed oa S197 bond od emne eff ece” ae 
eterza ad¢ gedt bled tryed smexque @ 2 
ta shea oa’ hee det de yrds — 
Aa a to elsed eft ebham ed wen mee doide bas w 
e'iilded} €8 aeltose tebaly dnemgiut s oF. — San cides § ey oe 
ad? of Doxzetes' aa, dove exes ere otat, Off. * 
Gye ef? to ytheagaont ‘oad asitteg to —— 
— —————— 
& te d&seb Veelfe ng att to stom ro emo % aise b eritrvies: * 


att of mwond Ti .adoet aaed? to #aio 
ov ef $i Bre ———— e to ey ** =f 
owe to fowee add ye —D ae ‘oo os. gee 







ftoide aoitom off to eid Spine vores ad 
eolgmerd ant a6 Ato# & a Stes es 
text? ese euel? comet hans —— * 3a $e 4 
ei ce ft at Sgt od Het, Bite a 08TE 

yYits tadd , geod svat 8 * ake 
eno £ tase xb osende add te ee aed? vost to ar o' 

ont — bette ‘ybewtie geod ever 

Ramee roTT, to tine a "ao —* 


ade te, omit its * rade ostte ott % —— * iia —* 











6 
fact, if it is and was a fact. The sworn petition upon which the 
court is asked to set aside the judgment appealed from is a pleading - 
a declaration - and is not evidence of any fact pleaded. inder 
the case presented by defendant, the court was fully justified in 
entering the order from which this appeal is taken. 

The order appealed from is affirmed. 

AVF TIAMED. 


WILSOK, P.J. AND HEBEL, J. cONgUR, 






































— Bae 3 


Raw Hh hid. #¥ 





i i — —J 
ied 
ie 


—J— Ral —9* tea 
Sees 4: eg ohh sowre 
\ Se WATE —— ee RATS BA yey 









etinxy 40) 2h ak seheinaess an eee SOT : 
geerss acd, fads. died ie, ep). Ramee Mee.. EA ag BR Es 

te texee Me Dine & to eheet wee thew ee @ 

weltoa.«. te dkeod nat aeioaae, etl | 
¢ FF Ftgh} we He { Peyvase Y hey ow aie 





mit 28 —— * yn. 2950 — 
"Rd one 
late — at —— Enel Sf Eo 
nih: Pe le Sree eae eS SF gE MCRLS POE — 
edi, end este SA ghia, Sameer Rie Sk pith i ak Bs i 
we as 8) Bae Seo « Ye vole 
iter. Sit — ae a eT J 
eit Hpigan ses 3a 
ecigeer’ e223. ce Meat 
justi sew waked 
Bk oo 2s oe, Bayt ee, 
Tas Cade — opel: ‘ 
nnd — —— ore, 


IRVING SUDIN, minor by HYWAK/SUDEi, | 
his next friend, ff 





APPEAL FROM ae 


Appellee, 
SUPERIOR COURT 
Ve 
BANKS LINKN SUPPLY COMPANY, a 
corporation, — COUNTY. 


Appellant. 12 7 01 ‘A, 634 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HALL ORLIVERED THE CPINICH OF THE COAT. 

This ie an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the 
Superior Court of Sook County for $700.00, entered in » proceeding 
brought by plaintiff as next friend of Irving Sudin, © minor, against 
defenfant, in which plaintiff sought te recover damages for injuries 
caused to Irving Sudin by the alleged negligence of defendant. 

The declaration filed, consists of five counts, in which 
it is charged thet defendant's truck, through the negligence of its 
driver, ran against and struck the plaintiff; that such act was 
wilful and wanton; that defendant's servant was negligent in not 
giving warning of its approach, as provided by statute; that defend- 
ant's servant was guilty of malicious conduct in not giving a werning 
of the approach of the truck and that defendant violated a statute, 
which provides that in approaching or paseing « street car, the 
driver of » motor vehicle should not drive such vehicle to within ten 
feet of the running board of such street car, Gefendant filed «= plea 
of not guilty and a plea Genying ownership of the truck, but the 
question of ownership ig not raised on this appesl. 

Irving Sudin testified that he was ten years of age at the 
time of the accident; that on the 20th of February, 1971, he wos a 
passenger on » street car going north on Stony Island Avenue in the 
Gity of Chicsego; thet the street car stopped at the south side of 
33rd street and the plaintiff alighted from the rear platform of the 


OO aoe tasted ° 





ik * odes ming —* 
\ \ , fe 
| : ) —— 
RS actanu i ae 
* 
4* “smuaswoo rave Prerel ‘ema 
eXYTRUGD 39900. ated t sroqrem © 


ae we he ify Maen: 


SECL vall belit soinlgo 
efAUG0 SHYT GO BOLMINO ERT GEMAVIIEG ZIAK GOLTSGL pK | 
ad¢ to taomgbut # most taahaokeh wh Laeqqe me eh mid® © 00 o> 
gaibeesetq s al bexetne .00.00% tet ytawe) deot to sued. —— 
tesiass ,tomia « ,thbet gatersl Yo Gaedxt deem an Thidndalg a —X 
geltutal tot eegemeh teveooe of tdégues Tritndalg deide at .Saabasted 
atashaste> to sonegiigen begelin ode yd athws gaivel ot —— 
“ dotde a2 .ataven evit to etuieneo .bollt mokteraloed: edt | 3 
edi to eenogtigan edt dguordd .doutt e'anhanteb fede bagtsdo et mn 
acw tos dove tadt ;Ytitaiel edt doutte ben tentage ast arowdtb 
fon ai taogifgen enw taerrse stinshasteb god? pmotasy bas Satie 
~basteb tadt jotutate yd bebivor es .dosenegs att te gathers ow anivis 
gutorer 9 gatvtg tem at towhnoo avetotion Yo yelling sew tasvese altia 
astutets « betsleiv tasbasteb ted? bas dowid edt to deeonggs adt to 
oft 4t56 deerte « yutoaay se gatdonenqas ai teds aebiveta ‘dolde 
not aidthe of eleidey dove avinh tom bivode eLoidev totes # to aevith 
s0iq a beLtt sanbasted .xx0 teorte dove Yo bused salnaus ads te toot 
ond dex! ,tound aie te Gitdrenwe gaiyaed aelg R bas veLtug ton wy 
visoage ahi? mo Beate tom af qiderenwo to sotseeue 
odd tn oa to areey net new od tadé betrttest athet gatvrt ~ ahaa 
e sew od ,S80L .yrsurdel to A308 edt ao edt itambess edt to omlt ae 
ont mt omové hnatel yt? mo dixon gatey xno seorte ae TopaenenE | 
to ebte dtuos oft tx beuqoda cam teerte odt tedt jeysoide te yet 


—— LoS a 
oft te nro tial cao oft monk botigtio Mitataly out ban teotte je bate P 








2 

Gar on which he was a passenger, passed around the rear of the car, 
started west across Stony Island Avenue, and that eas he reached the 
edge of the street car he stopped and looked both ways. He stated 
that at this time the truck coming south toward him, slowed down; 
that he proceeded across the street running, but thet at this time 
the truck started going faster and struck him as he reached the west 
rail of the south bound track, lie steted that he waa first knocked 
about seventy five feet when the truck struok him the second time. 
He was taken to a hospital for treatment. He testified that his leg 
was injured so thst it was necessary to put two pieees of iron on it 
extending to his toes to hold the leg straight, and thst he had the 
irone on his leg for about two months. 

On oross @xamination, the boy testified that when he first 
saw the truck it was slowing up on the north side of 33rd Street, and 
that at that time the distance from the automobile to him ws the 
length of the oar plus the width of 33rd Street; thet he stopped a 
few seconds and icoked, started to walk west across the west track, 
saw the truck coming fast and th=t he then started te run ond was 
struck by the truck. 

For the plaintiff, Joseph Hu. “ingo testified that he was 
standing in front of the second door south of 35rd Street on Cottage 
Greve Avenue, sew the boy alight from the street car, pase sround 
the rear of the car and look up and down the street, and that at 
this time the truck was about fifty feet from the boy. He further 
testified thet he shut his eyes when the truck hit the bey and sew 
no more until the boy was pieked up. This witness also testified 
that he heerd no warning sound from the trucke 

For the defendant, Sey Hill, a watehman, testified that 
he saw the boy pass around the rear of an automobile following the 
ear from which the boy hed alighted, but that he did not agein see 
the boy until the truck hit hia. 


g 
avee aff to test ad? daror⸗ — tonaoneag ⸗ caw aii Modda fry © x9 
eds bedesot of as fad? heres - en baaiel note ecxbs: eon boreate 

hetate oh .eyaw dod fedeol Bas hagatite od wan teette edt to agbe 
jitwob bowoie ,mid Prewod déwon yaimoo dovat ett emit eid? te tadt 
antt aldt ta dade ted apmdcnurr teente ed? eaorns ——— od saa 
teow ada beroset ef es mrt toutes ban rodent Sikes heguets Sound add 
besoond teas? om od tant — toss? baved stwes ett to iter 
J noosa ‘ea hong — sound ot aeite toot In rtaoro⸗ tuorus 
gol etd gedd bettitest si .taemteort ‘tot inttqeod a ot soda ase - 
th ao sort to eoselg ont tuy of ytaesooen aw #5 ted? 08 
adé bed od feds bas atyLorte gol edt blon ot 90s ‘eta fof aivaed 
aoaos ove tues wo! got aii mm snort 

tent a ned tee hostitaad yo ant sorteatexs evoro 20 


GL WES a Bee 


bas atooree bre * ents atven ads mo qu yatwode ad ts four? oft wos 
“add eon mii of oLtdomotun edt most sonnteih ed? oats tad 9 30 tads 
e Beqqote of todd ;toexse Bree to dtbiw oe exig 220 ot * — 
wieert tow sit aaotos teow dlew of edaate sbestook bas ebacos 

_ eer bee su ot betrate ned? odd ⸗ bre rest — aye 
ont vo tounte 


ese of dedd battsreot ogats oi da9e0t pee iy ois rot aah lee 
sgattee ao teorts brit te atuoe roob hagowe sit te taort at t gait at 














pa aes 





hiwots eBeq 4tee soarse edt mott ‘tigtis wo ode wee eounerrs oro 


te tedt bas foots ett uob bas em, deol bas x90 edt to tate ode 


rodiat oH Yad ete wort Poet win suede ow sours ode outt ‘ead 
wee bas yor ott tid dour? sit aoac eoye aid fuse 04 t249 boiraseat 
beititess esis seont te eiat “Ue bododg om ‘Xoo ott kta eTom oa 
— ode mort bawos gaiacow vom bread od teat 

, fads boitttacs omits on s LL ori ataahasteb as x01 hei: 
edt Batwoilo® Aoono tua an te — ods bawors 5* ott waa re 


* oan ahays gon Hib od todd ed boatgta bad yoo sd dos 


tAcaiwle wag Dee xen grand 


sai #26 ound tau Yor oa 








The driver of the truck did not testify. Defendant 
predueed other witnesses, none of whom saw the sccident, 

A physicion testified on behalf of plaintiff that he 
treated the boy for 2 fracture of the leg and shock, and that the 


charge for his services was $300.00, 
In Mulligan v. Andel, 245 lll. App. 132, this court said, 


page 139; 


"A police officer alighted from 2 weetbound street 
car at 2 street intersection where the gar hed stopped 
to receive and discharge passengers. ie walked around 
the back end of the car and immediately on stepping from 
behind the car was struck by the corner of an eastbound 
ear. It was contended that he was guilty of contributory 
negligence, beeonuse he did not stop, look or listen before 
& upon the track, and thet the court should have 

rected a verdict for defendant. te held that under 





the evidence it was a question of fact for the jury. 
Ve 288% 51 U8 © Suburban Vso L523 Ill. Appe 
» and the gment was a mead in 245 Ill. 308." 





The case was submitted te the jury, fairly. the jury saw 
and heard the witnesses, and thie court ean find nothing in the 
record which would justify « reversal. fherefore, the judgment 


of the Superior Court is affirmed. 
AFFIRMED. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HEBEL, J, CONCURs 


‘dmehastot’ .ybsteod Yor Bib aours oft to tevixb eat = 
stuehloos ett wee mode Yo omen yusbnentiw todte beeubor 

eM todd WAtetete te Uinded ae Beitigees hsbteye A” 
ad? tedt Bae —* bes gel edt Yo Studoaet & tok yor odd bosat 
“00/8680 kaw deelvres eid * avra⸗ 

blow deans ete * GGA ELI Bae eee o mance ai — 
eats nae tt 
ott — ae toe Eye | vid 


— 8 — — 
















ee. * eit eer oc. ie 
Py: xo doo! dots 


pit add 0 : baat oe * 

* ut ont itt? oe oxtt ot — d 
ed? ms anitton bait age gruos eidg ies, ast 

| nanghut ode ,orototedy parte, a, ttout blvor —* a 


* 


oa ‘ 


hae ta .. to 











—E 





* 
808 a me | bet 
Pi As ie ar 4s a” 
g is ae & 





se i oh, oe — al * 
tie Ge Fe ae % My 4 igen 
9 — * —8 * diene 
a y Poses mye ee Ga bee are . a 
er : ee BPD heared Be sae fae aude Ne aeAe ae Ke if 
F * 7 $ * 
Ri * F vite 
seas AS ees Cama sah LASS eH ReaD " Heal ( — 
— bone Pe is 


is eee wees —*— see aged vi —J 

nt Peele Pega {ones tin. hak oe wee me $3 bw ea NE R 
‘% ‘tal P . ‘ 5 ae 7 

pest 828 tees we 





36108 
MAY WANG, ⸗ 





Appellee, ‘EAL FROM fry 
v. # i 
AJAX AUTO COMPANY, a MUNICIPAL COURT f 
Corporation and WARNER BROS. . 
THEATRES, a eorporation, 
OF CHICAGG 





On Appeal of AJAX AUTO COMPANY, 
& corporation, 


Cp f — A 
270 1.4. 684" 


— — ⸗— — ee ee 
8 


Appellant. 
Opinion filed May 34, 1933 

BR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THA OFINION GF THE GOURT. 

This is om appeal by Ajex suto Compamy from a judgment of 
the Municipal Court of Chicago in a suit brought by plaintiff (appellee) 
against two corporations, the Ajax Auto Company ani Warner Bros. 
Theatres, Inc. 

Plaintiff's statemmt of claim alleges tht the defendant, 
Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc., operates the Avalon Theatre in Ghicageo; 
that on November 29th, 1950, the Ajax Auto Company agreed with Yarner 
Bros. Theatres, Inc., to deliver a certain sutomebile to the Avalon 
Theatre, in consideration for which the Avalon Theatre agreed to adver- 
tise the business of the Ajex Auto Company on the screen of the 
theatre, and by moans of cards, circulars etc.; that the sutomobile 
was delivered to the theatre, end that the theatre distributed cer- 
tain cards, coupons and circulars in the neighborhood of the theatre 
advertising that the automobile would be civen away to some one of the 
patrons of the theatre under certain conditions; that plaintiff 
attended the theatre, received a coupon bearing a number, which she 
was informed, was the lucky number drawn in the raffle, and which 
entitled her to receive the automobile in question; that she was there~ 
upon given a letter addressed to the defendant, Ajax anto Company, 


directing the Ajex suto Company to deliver to plaintiff the automobile 














Bore. 





* ‘ps0; —— J F 
—— 


peo Al oss, 


week AS ya Sener monte 

pEtvoo “air to morieeo ant atizertng pum sobre ‘ 
‘to “tnome bet MOE Yarqaay ofmi wat e —— 
‘eelloggea) trdatale “ed ac nen al # :: wet . * = * 













uel wl otpndt nofers ode. — wet, poor ae ni * 
‘tomreW div deoraa yaeqmol orm xo ae oeet aiid a oy ‘igh 






cecal cate tut’ — ——— 
roo hotudixteth erteedt aft ted? faa ,ontnesdt edt oF boxovi feb aa 
extnod? est Yo Soodvodiyten att at exalwosto feo amoguoo sabtoo abet 
eft to eno enor ot yows movin ed bivow eftdorotun edt tedt gatettvevha 
Tiisatate tet jamktthace atstreo rebaw extaedt od? 20 enorteg 
este fiotdw ,nedmun = gatzeed moquec 2 bevtecet ,owtoodt oat ob tte 
Moise ban ,eltian oft mt amex roca ystomt edt cow ,demrctat a 
-wzod? amv ole tail’ notteaup mt efidomatie est evteoos of tod botebim 
 qymauuiod 08s 0b ,teaBnoteb ot of Kesaenbbe totter » muviy sogs 
— odit wrgatete of wyttet or ota, x a at 28 














2 
referred to, which the ajax Aute Company refused te do, and plaintiff 
Claims the sum of $700.00, the value of the sutemebile. 

Defendant, Ajax Auto Sompany admitted entering into the 
agreement with Warner Bros. Theatres, inc., under the terme of which 
it wes to deliver an automobile to Warner Sros. Theatres, ine., under 
certain terms and conditions, but averred that the terms and conditions 
of the agreeaent had not been complied with, and that therefore it 
was under no obligation te deliver the automobile, and further, that 
at no time did the Ajax Auto Company have any agreenxent with any 
patron of the Avalon Theatre regarding or concerning en sutomobile. 

vefendent, Warner Gros. Theatres, inc., in ite affidavit 
of merits, slieged thet it entered into « contract for the delivery 
of the automobile to it, in consideration of certain advertising to 
by done by it on behalf of the Ajax Auto Company, the sutomebile te 
be given away to some patron of the Avalon Theatre in a raffie to be 
held, but thet after it had performed ite contract, the Ajax Auto 
Company refused to deliver the automobile as agreed. On March Sth, 
1932, a trial was had befere the court, resulting in « finding against 
the plaintiff as to Werner Grog. Theatres, ine., and a finding against 
the Ajax Auto Company for the eum of $700.00. Upon the record as 
made,it was proper for the court to determine whether either or both 
of the defendants were iisble. Motions for » new trial and in arrest 
of judgment were made by the Ajax Auto Jempany. ‘oth were overruled, 
and a judgsent entered on linrch Sth, 1932, for plaintiff ond against 
the Ajax Aute Company for the sum of $700.00. On the seme date, an 
appesl from this judgment by the Ajax Auto Company to the Appellate 
Gourt was prayed and allowed, upon the filing of an appesi bend fer 
the sum of 1,090.60 in 3O days, and 2 bill of exceptions in 60 days. 
4n appeal bond was presented, approved and filed on April iSth, 1932. 
On May 27th, 1932, on motion of the piaintiff, the court entered an 
order dismissing Warner Gros. Thestres, Ino., and that this defendant 





whdnntany bas ,ob of beewter yrequod ofwA xetA edt Molde .ot 
seitdenotun #2 te aula odd ,00.007) to awe ode send 

od? otal gatretae vortinde yarqmod otwh eats gtnebaston” 
doidn to eured att gehaw , onl seordsedt 2BO%E venzal at ty LORE 
tebaw ,.o0l ,aeTteed?T .eow® rexta® ef siidemotus Re tevi fon av ‘aie 





atoltibves Sas eevet ot tedd bowters til ,enoktibves — agente , 
$k suoterad? tedd bra dtu beliqnoo aved tom bat teemporges OF tO 





todd (redteu? don gelidomodun edt roviieh ot aokteatise on — ane 4 
yan athe saeubergs Nia. ova aamob etwas Rata edt bib omie on te 4 





















ssitdonotun as gainrsoaes 40 yatbtaget vatued? aolara od 20 aortaq 
Siyebitte ett at ..onl ywortoodt onoxs xeaxen | gtaeahaay ony 

io Yreviish odt tot Yoastaos 4 ofnt betetme fi sadt Oagotia tts bi 
ot aitattrevbs aistise to ackterebienos at * et Si deloune | 
ot eLidomotue eit “¢Waqmod ote Raga edt to ‘Raded se ot we 
ed of oitter « at extsed? moleva edt 30 nottey ence OF ers wevta * ‘ 
Oth xepA od? ytoottaoo eft boxrotneg bed #2 togte tad? ted ghiek 
«828 dovall a0 .boerye * eLisonotus ante ‘eveseh, at beater — a not 
fentags gaihalt 9 at gabtivost — oat outed, bad eon tokee 4 
saninge gobi kt a bas 4.bal seetizedt Rone, ‘rennet ot * mus 
as Pree ait aogd .00.007$ Yo mus edt tot yaaquet 
dted ‘to rodtte rads ade sajetoseh ot P1008 oie x02 * a a ‘ 
taorre mt bac Letz? wom # tot gmotto .oidats exw adnabagtos | 
.beLuwxeve ory ftot _ a emeq200 oun xo ode Wt eben exon ; 


feutags hae Ytidubele tor .f6eL ere fork so borates tage bar, 4 AER. 
ae «oteb enna off mo 10040078 To mye. edd ot weaned — mer, oat 
staLiogaa ott ot ron? oth eth. outs My tasoyhe, eidt wort Le ag ® 
no bred Lasqas aa Yo gat ea oq ,bowotin ba beyond sen. Oxo. 
eyed 0 at aso ttqooxe to tie * bas neve § a8 ak Me 6 ol toe ⸗ 
“ 866L eB Atagh 0 belt bas bevorg : : 





3 
have judguent as in case of non-suit for costs. 

On May 27th, 19332, when thia order was entered, the appeal 
bond of defendant, Ajax Auto Company, on the appeal from the judgment 
entered March 8th, 1933, had been approved and filed se thet at that 
time, the Municipal Court had lost jurisdiction. 

From the record, it appears that in considerstion of adver- 
tising to be done by defendent, Warner Bros. Theetres, Ine., the 
car in question was deiivered by the Ajax Auto Company to Warner bros. 
Theatres, ine,, at the Avalon Theatre, wnéder an agreement between 
the Ajax Auto Company and Werner Bros. Theatres, tne.; that the onr 
was to be given to « lucky patron of the Avalon Theatre who might 
draw the winning number in « raffle to be held at the theatre; that 
the raffie and drawing were held; that at this time the car was in 
the possession of Warner Bros, Theatres, Ine.; that plaintiff drew 
the number shich entitled her to the cer; thet at this time the oar 
was on the stage of theatre, and that plaintiff wae notified that 
hers’ was the winning number, and that she was aleo there informed 
by Mr. de & Seber, the Gxles Manager of the Ajax Auto Company and 
others that she had won the our, and that it belonged te her. Plaine 
tiff testified that at this time she was given e letter by the 
manager of the theatre, addressed to the Ajax Aute Co., notifying 
the Ajax Auto Company that plaintiff wee the winner of the car. This 
letter is shown in the record. The pleintiff further testified 
that Fred 4. Patterson, the president and aanager of the Ajax Auto 
Company, and “eber, its avlesman, told her that the esr neededcare, 
that she would have difficulty in getting the car out of the 
theatre door and further that the Ajax Aute Compeny desired to 
display it for a week or ten days and asked her to allow the Ajax 
Auto Company to take it, which she did, and thet she, plaintiff, 
could have the gar after that, 
















| :  seteeo tot tiee-nog to ona ml aa soomphyl evad 

faequa edt — Row Aahas aids aody .80GL gts xau 20, — 

saemghul, eft mort Lasqqs ef me .wieqaed ogua rapa etnebaorab te Baad 

tadd ta fod? o@ bolit bas bevoryn ased bad bee .dt@ dose boregae 

| eottolbartu, deel bed tuwod Laqdotausit * * it 

* * woktenabtenoe at tadt wtnccgs 24 sbuopen od? moxt . 

Ode geOHl gAOTHOOKT eRe TAaTER _sitiabagted: a 90d, or of 3 at ate t 

sog x*occxen ot vasgac otus xeta edt yi bezeviied few Bo tteeup, ab 280 

— aeqnted daemoetgs as zoheu ,ertsedT aotaya ond 9 4.001 ,eogteomt 

nao edt tadd jeval seertaod? .wom teamtel bas nega one xt * 
tigin oly oxteed? aglavs ent te aoaeg youl « of aevig 











—* —* pn saw ss hide atin ined sro 
_ baa Yanqmod otvs, xajA edt to megane pole® out qredelt a ny oth : 


_otun * ode t0 —— bee anobinong 8 edt ——— vind * 
nadbohaon too oft todd rod biet quomeelen etl oaa ms a 
edt to do. tee odt gatttes mt Wiuolrr sb ovat Bd 





Both Patterson and Weber testified on behalf of the 
defendant, Ajax Auto Company, and neither denied the statements 
alleged to have been made by them to the plaintiff - thet she had 
won the cer in the raffle, that with her permission it would be 
exhibited for a time, and thet it would then be delivered to her. 
Their statements amounted to on admission of ownership of the oar 
by the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff further testified that when she called upon 
defendant, Ajax Auto Company, she was refused the oar, for the reason 
as was stated to her, that « disegreenent had been had between this 
institution and Warmer Broa. Theatres, Ine., with which, of course, 
she wes not concerned. it is in evidence that defendant seld the 
eer for £700.00, the amount of the judgment. fhe oar in question 
was delivered te the Avalon Theatre by defendant, Ajax Auto Company, 
and after the drawing plaintiff wos notified by all the parties, 
including the agents of the Ajax Auto Company, that the ear belonged 
to her, and from that moment the title and the right to the possess- 
ion of it were in pisintiff. Sy = subterfuge, the defendants 
ebteined possession of the car, sold it, and the plaintiff has an 
undoubted right to recover its value from defendants. 

We are of the opinion thet the trial court was neither 
in error in its finding, nor in entering judgsent. fhe judgment of 
the Munteipsl Court is affirmed. 

AYFIRMED. 


WOLSON, P.J. AND HESELJ. CONCUR. 


od? to tieded ag hettiduet cedet Ane noetedt at sea ee ae 
ninenetoon att holoeh tedtien fe ,yoekmen otwa meta — 

bed ote tedt — Yitadele ot of mest WW ehum west over oF Begettn 
ad Sivow ¢h moiveimrog ted dtiw ted? ,okktet edt mb ged ent now 

sted of Dorevi leh od matt binow th thuld baw ysmth w uot boo .tdkdied 

wee ed? be qéideremwe to epbwedebs as 0% hetuwowa atasmetate xLodt 
 @Vtbeahady micheal 

tenn beileo wie meme tedt Setiites? reditewt Peseta 6. 8m 

soe oat ais TAR «0p ait, Soauox, now Ra 4 geo otek xabs: yfuabnane 
addé. aoewted bad. nope. bod @rosessgcesh 9 ted yao of botete sow an 
eaten te .kedde dtdy ,.00k ,eotdsedl .ege remax dae sokduedtent 
Odd Digs saebaoteb todd somabive wd ad #h ..hemne0n90 tom eaw ede 
woltsoup at 09 od? sdanmpbut ot Yo tawoma eit 400.0083 sok 240 
Wagwod AFH) KSLA atnsbased ys ouseedt modews edt of borewsied eae 
weitteg edt iis yl feltidom aew ar tan bala gadwanh odd woehe bas 
bogaeled x90 edt ted? .ymagmos ocera Rata edd to cinage odd gathuload 
~spaeaoy odd of tiyte edd has OL0ht ext taamon todd moth daw qrodyat 
etushnoteb off ,egutieddvs o YW wltitelalig at enon ry Yo ned 

me aad Wadotalg edd Bas gtk Bios, reo edd ty AoLewsaneg: Soatadde 
seteahaoreh wert ediev att Reveoes of tisk bhoddvohar 

tedtion eqw truvo iettd oft sadt antaheo ed? to exe oN - nso 

to teemabat edt .taeegtwt anévetee af moe yauthadtowta as notes at 
| beamed ee. eased: — 

— D ‘ehh twee ot yeretiad 42 Bot bag 

Ce ee hee fe eae 
W089 AKER. HA stos osau⸗ 
3 iY gouty Bee Seat wth ees 

| J as “eta a% en kande 
ath of pttin duct Mie hah ete Ay th ale oF enon oie. 
ees oe to ety evra Dae, 4 


me 4 “woh i 








36118 } 
WILLIAM FRENDAZIS, fi. — form 
Appellee, | ao / 
MUNICIPAL COURT i 
Ve i 
MUTUAL BENEYIT aNB Alp SCOLETY, oF — 
a Corporation, 27 7 
OG i A eo WD 63 rhe 
Appellant. 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THK OPINIGH OF TAX COURT 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court 
of Uhiengo against defendant for the sum of £100.00. Plaintiff's 
statement of claim alleges that plaintiff is a memeber in good stand- 
ing of Section 28 of the Mutusel Benefit and Aid Seciety, and that 
he has paid his dues and is in good standing in the society; that he 
applied to the physician in the district, in whieh plaintiff resided, 
for medical aid, to which plaintiff, as = member of such society, 
Claimed to have been entitled; thot the ailment for which he sought 
treatment was a hernia or rupture; that he so informed the society 
physician and requested that he perform an operstion, and that such 
physician refused te operate. fhe statement of claim further recites 
that plaintiff then consulted « physician not connected with the 
society, and was informed by the latter physician that an operation 
was necessary; that this latter physician performed an operation, 
and thet pleintiff was compelled to pay for such operation the sum of 
2169.00, which amount plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant. 
In its affidevit of merits, defendant denies lisbility, 
and asserts that under the by-laws of defendant society, to which 
plaintiff acquiesced when he became «2 member thereof, plaintiff was 
only entitied to treatment by 2 physician sélected by the society, 
and that if he employed another physician, he didso on his own respon- 
sibility and at his own expense, The ourpose of the organization is 
to furnish medical aid te its members under its rules and regulations. 


: * . 
X —— tA AN at _ BERRY —8 


I ——» — ddamte ey nd ———— d we eget km 
eOMADIUD ~~ | ,, at P2poon Gia cu remem a 

Res 8 Q ay i 0 ‘y a  dettegga > wea ee. eae ye 
SECL .dS ye beLit aotatgd ———— 


“eHUO0 MAT TO ROTHT wT aany mE DUAN” ohne: chi 
drs00 Laqloteud eft te tronghet 2 aowt Laegqe ae’ an eben ried 
w'Y¢itntele 00,008) te mus ett tot dnabnsted Fen haiti te 
“baste booy a2 rodemen & ef Tittntely ted? wagetta wtefs to deenedete 
tate bre ,yfeloo® HIA bas dhtensa Lavdull one Yo Be nadtees to gmt 








od tad? jytetbow edd at grihaets boog at af bax oud etd Bheq ehd' et 


sbebioot thivately dotdw mt (tolevelh ont af Avkoteysy et? oe beatings 
evtetoon doive to redwen » ae {titebely dota od qbtt Leotbon Tot 
tigvok od dobde vot taomLie ont tadd pholthend noo evid of bembate 
| Ytshoos edt bemotad ov Od sed Yorvbqirt ee gbnthd’ w bow saomitiord 
doye tedd hos gtoltertsqe ae mrotveq od doit Dedaewper baa maloke yg 
setioss yedtavt wtelo to theaetats edT. .otereqs of dwmvter matohaydg 
ot? ite betpenmod ton maleieyda « bod ivaade’ aot Uhdate le dei 
soisersge mo dad? aetoteyic vortel edt yw bewrotel eaw bins —J 
otarvgs ae bextottey aainteydg total ehdt tant vy eB 88 
te mue edt soistaxeqo dowe tot yeq oF betLeqnoo aow — — ay et 
staadmeted moTt revover of eXeoe Ptitmtely tavoms dotiw ,00,eDI% 
WWHLLIGALL aetnob taabasteb yetirem Yo tivebstte ett at | 
dotdy ot .yteioon tandacteb to awkiawt edt ‘tobi tedt atroees 
ane Tiitotsly .lovredd rodwem & aasoed od mow ‘hesaotupes Mita telg 
at@eloos eft yd hoveeten aatoteyds a yd tuomdeott of boLtitne vine 
“noqeey awe aid mo oedth ed ynatoteyte rodtons heyoiqua od Lt test bas 
at moiterinsyto add to Seoqtuy oft .sameqxe owo eld to bas VWilidte 
sanoltsiugox bata eolur 2 taba atednom att of bie Leothom 


1) 











bow fatowt e¢ 





3 
The rules of the organization are s2 follows: 
Art. i. General 8ules. 


Seo, 1. The Soard of Administration shall on the 
lst day of May in each year divide the society into 
districts, which shall be known as, "Free Medical Service 
Districts," 


See. 2 The Board of Administration shell on May 1 
of each year designate and appoint for each district a 
duly licensed physician and surgeon. ; 


see. 3. The name, address (residence and office), 
telephone and office hours of exch district doctor and 
also the bounderies of the respective districts shall be 
published in esch issue of the official organ of the society, 


Art. Ii. Rights of embers. 


Seo. le Every member of the soctety shall be entitled 
to receive free medical service including service for acute 
and chronic sooial diseases, and also including genersi 
surgical operations. 


See. 3. Every member shail have the right to eall on 
the physician appointed for his reapective district, «% 
the office of said physician for examination and trestment 
ss the regular daily hours of said physician. In case 
of m illness, or accident, or such iilness which in- 
capacitates the member from calling at the office of the 
physician, the member shall have the right to demand the 
pages to eall sat his home at any time during the day 
or e 


See. 3. Members residing outside of the Free Nedical 
District shall also be entitled to a free medical service 
at the effice of the physician, but stall not have the right 
to demand that the physician make housecsils. 


Seo. 4. In case of emergency, the member may call on 
the nearest society physician for first sid, but thereafter 
wust submit to treatment by the physician appointed for his 
respective district. 


See. 5. In the event that hospital treatment shall 
become necessary, the member may choose any hospital where 
the — appointed for his district is admitted to 
practice. 


Sec. 6 Any grievances or complaints on the of 
the member respect treatment by the society's physician, 
must notify the office of the society, stating their 
reasons in writing. 


Art. Iile Duties of Members. 


Sec. 1. Members must acquaint themselves with the 
boundaries of tie district in which they reside, and alse 


| sig 
sawollet ac ote aclitanineyte ed? to welee ed¥ 
e8o ial istemed ok ot Kh 


ons A; Liade Reltattetntabs Yo beset edt .f .208 864) 
k yelooe adt abivih tra eS eee dene od & le Be tet 
codwre® "Teolbeu eord* oe aunt i J 


yok ao Liste — to SreeS off. oe 


& solxied *1 * taieggs bus stanyieed teey dese 
RPTL gh ~ thoagaie Bae aaloleyig besasoll — 


.(eoltta bea sesebtees) wsethba ,omnt ed? 8 oot 
bas weteoh toicteik dees Te etwed ealtte bua —* 
od Lisda ataintsih svisgoegeaed e437 to eelrebaued oa% coals 
eyteicoe od2 te aeg⁊o faieltte edt te suet dose ma — 


a Ba 
 eeedaet to — ———— 
bettiene ed Leds yistecs © o<? to wedmom yrovE of ee 


etyos tol selvtee gaihwieal sefeter ivoiben wert ovkever of ik 
Lerenay antbuloat cole ane grenesath core olnesde ae. ge 





—— * “ * 
ee a a a a 


ee 


eee 


*8 pret 


ao Ltnd oF Styie ode ovat ‘tate — — 4 * sone ¢ YO Sect 
te ,tolutath este soso hd tot ba oe ‘pal | 
a * ” — 








—3 | * 
“od * oe “ —T— than i — oes Loi 
t ca] -* e 6 s les sort redmen 6 * 

ano ot tigix eat Piva ‘fiede vedwea oe — wee 
wab Och geitso onda yas fp onod els ta fino of maloley@g. 


yom sort edt Yo afletee gribiaer eradeek 48 soe8 6618) Or 
tvaes isoitbes oerk 808 beielias 96 ose 

tg bs eat ovat ton Ilaria dud- yet OY Bo 
s2ilessauod ease asae way ode i 


ao Lise Yeu tedmen ect yenegrene % & SEs0 ai * — 
—— ⏑—⏑———— —— —— 
ala <ot doeatogqs He tokeyg on —— ot M4 ' 


| §iete tamateott ietiqeed ade trove edt —* —2 
Ot ety fotteeed yas seoode tédaem ede ,YtHR 
ot bavtiahe at teltewtd. ‘eer! — 


te greg oe fe etntaiaaoe 0 ‘eneneve —— 





gitako *yteioon ie math on 3 ——— hive 
giods gaitste em oud to oaks bie nites teen 
a at sxberon « .. 
serodiney to sertoa itr otra ot t2 vadd nw 


ety dtiw eevisemedy ta satesson . — eredmek wf sooo Weetic a 
opie bas ,oblest yess, — * —— one te ee . 
* oF 4 GRLERUE oi 


with the location and office hours of the respective 
district physician. 


Seo. 2. The free medioal service herein provided 
shall be furnished only by the physician appointed for the 
respective districts. Members engaging the service of 
amy other physician ineluding physician appointed by the 
society for districts other than the district in which 
the members reside, are te to pay the expenses and 
charges of such other physician, and the society shall 
in no Gase be responsible for the payment of such services. 


See. % Members whose physical condition permite them 
to visit the office of the physician, must do go, and 
shali not expect or request the oshysician to call at their 
homes under such circumstances, 


Sec. 4 All bDandages, uwedicel preseriptions, hospital 
fees and isboratory examinations must be paid fer by the 
member, and ave not included in the free medical service. 
Expenses inourred for the services of specialiste or special 
treatments must also be paid by the member, 


Art. i¥, General Rules for Society Physicians, 


Sec. le Recommendetions of names of physicians to be 
appointed by the Soard of Administration must be received 
by the Seoretary of the Society not ister than the March 
meeting of the Seard of Administration. 


Sec, 2. The compensation te be paid to the physicians 
for the free medical service sh=ll be stipulated and agreed 
upon by the Board of Administration before contracting with 
ony physician for such services. 


See, 3. The Soard of Administration shall appoint a 
committee to be known as the *Doecters’ Committee,* and all 
ievancea and complaints of members against any society 

icien, or of any physician against e member, shell be 
referred to soid committee for decision, 


Art. V. tuties of Seciety vPhysicians, 


Gece le Every ician appointed by the society 
shall provide an off eentraliy loested in his district, 
and shall provide for certain definite office hours, during 
the day and evening on every day, except Sunday, 


Sec. 2. Every such physician, upon request, shall make 
all necessary house or hospital calls. 


See. 3. Said physician shail perform, free of charge 
all necessary general eal operations upon members 
residing in their respective districts. 


Sec. 4 It shall be the duty of said physician, upon 
request by the Financial Secretary of the society, to visit 
and examine sick members residing in other than their own 
—— and shall make reporte of their findings to the 
society. 





—— * eng ened quate wane 2 ade ativ 


bebivetg alerted 4 gotenes 2* sent. 
cat wt —— — ae YS . 

























“* yéstses orf ; 
mods atierog RO oe Bis ic 


base ,o8 ob 


: —— sie 


eoivisa Leo 
—— * —* 


4, sedtianed 'exod 
363 a jantegs pease fe 
disso 4 
* erry 


| septntoys vtste08 % este ‘dt — 
OR sah oft ig 3 ) indies His @ abiverg tke 
giituh gaxwod opttio etinited aisdsae tot ob Ky ; 
tae sae —— —— — 


nS 
els se 


adem tLeds eaeupet as ant teyda a 








gio to % ot 194... 
. oy “ote sdinon nog noes a 


* {igoty Peers er ics Lays — 
——— ————— ia We ERT ye 
tisiv © aioog 
eT) 3. —* By — — erimexe * 


—— 





Seo. 5. In the event that any physician appointed by the 
society shall for any reagon be unable to perform the 
services required of him, then such physician shall pro- 
vide a substitute physician acceptable to the society. A411 
charges of such substitute physician shail be borne and 
paid for by the society physician and not by the society. 


Sec, & very physician so appointed by the society is 

obliged to render and give first aid to any member of any 
district in the event of secident or emergency, end shail 

treat such m@émber until such time as the member may be 

removed to the respective district in which such member resides, 


It appears from the evidence that in the month of June, 1930, 
pjaintiff, who is » member of defendant society, onlled on Vootor F, 
Knoépfier, one of the regularly appointed physicians of the society, 
and assigned to the district in which plaintiff resided, for examin- 
ation, and thet plaintiff was informed by the doctor that he had a 
rupture, or hernia; that the physicien informed pisaintiff that the 
rupture was redugibie ani that an operstion was unnecessary. This 
physician also testified thet he did not refuse to operste. Thereafter, 
plaintiff employed Deoter Theodore Yohaps, who cerformed an operation 
on plaintiff, and it is for the latter physician's charges that the 
@laim is made against defendant. 

Plaintiff voluntarily became a member of the defendant so- 
ciety, whose rules provide that ‘members engaging the s@rvices of any 
other physician including physician appointed by the seciety fer dis- 


tricta other than the district in which the members reside, are obliged 
to pay the expenses and charges of such other physician, ani the secie- 
ty shall in no case be responsible for the payment of such services. * 

The by-laws of the society are « part of the contract between 
plaintiff and defendant for the furnishing of medical services to the 
defendant. There is nothing in the agreement te suggest that a member 
who is dissatisfied with the advice of the seciety's vhysician as te 
treatment, may select a physician of the member's own choosing, and 
that the society is under any obligstion to pay for the services of 
such physician. On the contrary, the very opposite is expressed in the 
by-laws. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the finding of the 
eourt below, and the judgment is reversed. 


REVERSED, 
HEBEL, J. GONCURS, WILSOR, P.J. DISSENTING. 


ade vw — Borage oe mn A oy fed? gneve odg al of +068 
ode —2*2 oldans 6 noa aa 

-orq Liede astoisyda dows ned? mid to betieper seabrese 
Lia .ytetoos sd% ot sidatqecon aalols etutitedus s ebiv 
bus eared wd Lieds meloiayiq stwtt ove lo aegtedo 
— ott bs tow wer Watess prancing 5* — 


You Tame ae eaht 
ete eet FR mp Hone dois ak todrteis evidonyeer eat — * 
O8eL ,envi to A oft ai tact somenize adé wort. arama —— 
Ixrod oog ao bates aY¥tpinos, tach 






vistab Ye xednom A ef ode Peis 
rastoos ost Yo analoteyiy betateqqs Ylvaluget sil te ono (xotte 
-aieez@ 01 ,bebleer Miteteds dole mt tobsinsd vdg of beagtess bas 
& bed od todd xovood ent ye Bectolat any Viitatele todt has .wotts 
edt tad? Witntelg detected mates de ott tude jakared to .otuwtqmn 
skal e¥tsevesenmy eew woltereco ae tad? Bae ——— Row Stadqers 
etissredt .stereqe of peter, tom me — dni, : * — eet rey | 








~08 tashaeteb edt to untied & — —A—————— — 


Yas to seo tyros O14 gatgagas etodiaein” tilt on tvon eo can vc xto 40 
-aib rot yteicos edd qd bedategqa aatoieysiq patbadont satoneydg todte 


egtide ors ,Obiee eredmen 9d? dotdy at toltdedh ont nad? wodto s ot 
sivon edt has gnetoteysg tedeo dove do esysede bas eeeneqne edt yoq ot 
*,ecotyten dowe to tnemyaq ot tot aid seaoqact ad aea0 om ai ome vw 
joented soaxtaae eit to ttag * ote yaloee ‘ed# to enalew od? 
edt of eeoivres Leptboe to gatdeintyt sit tot taabastes fan Yd * 
xodmem « ted? teoggue ot teonvergs oft ak ankston BE oxedt .tasbaoteb 
ot = neloleydg e'yteiooe ait to eoivha ent détie bottetiacard got 
fas ,yateoods avo e'xeduom edt to etoteyiq a teolen Ret ꝓev⸗vir⸗ —4 
to aecivree odt xot ve ot Motte, bide youd “Taha —X teioon edt. 
i? at Deceerqae af otieecgo ytey dad |, yrox tags odd aD stndokeety ‘meme 
ott te aathasy ead wot ghesd — tad * ‘wend —— —— 











— E 





oOKITHRIEIC 4b enim AAUONOO — J 





36170 7 
i 
¥. P. SHITH WIRE & IRON WORKS, y Tai 
b v pellee, Fs ⸗ 
SUPERIOR COURT ⸗ 
Ve f 
DAVID LAGKEY, SAMUEL LASKEY, or goox county, / 


et al., 
Appellants. 2 7 () T | A 635' 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
WR. JUSTICE HALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


Thie is an appeai from a decree of the Superior Court of 
Gook County in favor of complainant in » proceeding in chancery 
brought to foreclose s mechanic's lien, 

The bill chergeas thet defendant, David Laskey, is the 
owner of certsin described real estate in the city of Chieago; thet 
on the 7th day of Sugust, 1950, Devid Laskey, doing business as 
Laskey and Laskey, entered into « contract with complainant fer 
the sanufacture and instnalletion of certain iron and steel work 
upon = building then being erected on the premises described; that by 
the terms of the contract, defendant hed agreed to pay complainant 
the sum of 91,697.60 for such work; that complainant completed the 
work agreed to be done on or about December lst, 1950; that the work 
enhanced the value of the property deseribed, and that the amount 
agreed to be paid therefor by the terms of the contract was then due 
and payable. It is further sileged thet on January 9th, 19%1, com- 
plainant caused to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Cireuit 
Court of Cook County a claim end statement for =» mechanio's lien on 
the premises described for the amount alleged to be due. The bill 
prays for sn accounting; thet defendant be ordered to pay the emount 
due within a date to be fixed by the court, and thet in default of 
payment, the premises be ordered sold to satisfy the claim end lien. 

Defendants answered, denying that the work had been completed 
as agreed; denied that the work done by complsinanta enhanced the 



















J—— J 


889. LE OVS 


SsCL «MS ye belit motaiqO = 

PHO BAP GO MOLWINO SHY GENEVLIGG DIAM SOLTUUG GRR fide 

- to Pine? tobteque odd Yo eor0sb « moTd Lacdys an wh WEAR EO Some 
ine diiinde ——— nt téetiaiqads to tevet ai yhawe? dood 

; «ORE ot odeigtives + seolooxw? oF sdguord 

odd cf ,yevecd bivell tasbactel edt negro Litd eAT - re a 
ted? jogeold® Yo ytto ed mi etnten Lcox Sedixeush aferrss TO terwe 
| et fuenkelqsios Aviv dontiaes & eine Berezde yodend Bae yeaa 
Stow Leote bas word aéctyee to aodtsiietent dae sadtestunne ode 
qi ted? jhodizeasd eselaetg edt ao bedeere yoked wed? gathilod « mequ 
 gaanteiywon yeq of beorge bed duabdetep (goeteaeo édd Yo emnes odd 
“eit Setetemed tantindewor vast ydsow dace tat 065965, 09 Yo mid “ote 
aivow oa? dastt 7O8RL etal redmensl tuods £6 &o ‘nob — ‘ot Beers dzdw 


rt it 


tase ode tede ban chodironss. xéxoqore adt ‘to euley odd , —* 
— —— — enw ———— edd Yo ann⸗ pdt yo xetouedt Diez oof barre 

«moo ,iv@l ,dt@ yesunel go todd Bagelle gedit ef fl) “aeidsyeq bas 
‘Piwoxt® edt to bio od} Le sodttS sdt at DoLit —— ——— 


ms Mae bev ae 
























SR I 


‘te to mati ‘stoknadoen 4 rot * — 
AS ee A 4* —— teh techn 
LLAG odf sub 9c ot hea ite th 





@ 4 add Tot bedizoneb eeatmerg edt 
sexvome add ysq ct borodie · s sabaeteb dade qpattauecnerae tot event 

pe dinwtsh Ab Pea ae (otd08"s , 7 
nett hae miate ‘ode ‘vation ot ‘blow | e, boxebre & a 
betelguos need bad drew ott tase — Por ⸗ↄuaus ———— 
an? boona ane atnantaiqmoo W saeb aon oe faa * nob 


aX 


2 
value of the property; that the defendants are indebted to compisin- 
ant in any amount, and denied that at sny time defendant had notice 
that a mechanic's lien head been served upon defendants as provided 
by law. To the answer a replication was filed, end upon the bill, 
anewer and replication, the cause was referred to a Master in Ghancery 
"to take testimony herein according to lawe* On Januery 10th, 1931, 
by leave of court, an amended bill of compinint was filed containing 
substantiaily the aame allegations as these contained in the original 
bill, and prayed for the same relief, The court ordered that the 
answer filed stand as the answer to the emended bill. After extended 
hearings before the Master, and after many witnesses had testified 
on behalf of the respective parties to the suit, the Master on March 
nd, 1932, reported his findings, and recommended that a deeree be 
entered for the sum of ©1,757,00, the amount found by him to be due, 
and for which complainant was entitled to a lien on the premises 
Geseribed in the bill cf complinint. After « hesring by the court on 
exeeptions to the master's report, the decree appesled from was entered. 
The contract upon which the action is predicated, is ae follows: 
"¥. Pe Smith Wire and Iron Yorks 
Chisago, August 7th, 1930. 
This Contract dated August 7th, 1930 by and between 

Fo P. Smith *ire and iron Works, inc., 2340 Clybourn Ave., 

Chicago, Illinois, hereinafter known as the ornamental iron 

contractor, and Laskey & Laskey, hereinafter known ae the 

genersl contractor, agree to the following: 

ant out" aSs tennessee ta be 

erected at 52 East Oak &t., Chicago, Lilineis, as follows: 

Steel store front including second floor windows, door 
framing and door transoma to be made up of steel framing 


and J. G Sraun ornam@éntal pattern moulding, similar to 


drawings submitted today by ornamental iron contreetor for 
1902-04 Seuth Michigan Avenue. Ail work is to be manufsct- 


ured and installed ready te receive glass. 
Ornamental register grille in first floor vestibule. 


~gielmese of betdeiai ore atanbaet eb out ted . — —— alt te 
agiton bal tnehaetsh emle yoo ial teft pated bute — — — ‘Yae wk dan 
bobiveng a6 etusheeteb aoqe hevies aved bed moti etetandoon * ade 
Aktd edt seam Bag helit saw soktaoisger a Owes ode of ven i 
reeset mi ¢9¢ue% @ ot Sevtstor naw ouest ode olteotiqer kas Tewsas 
el8GL ,A2OL Wiousat oO Mth of gatinigoos aleved yaouttess ede? ot* 
giiatetnes belit esv daialqmos to ILid bebaeme me .hived fe eveol yd 
Letigive edt ai beatetroo scodt an eaettegelin emu vd Ylletsantedve 
od} felt bexebro Haod edt .YeLLor omed ade xo? beyeny dae yLktd 
behasies w9dti .flld bebrows @8Y of ToweHA Sty aw Rant bs tun reweas 
pertigeet bad seesentiw quam rete baa oxeeead off stoted aga need 
doxva wo veteed ode (tive ode Of eOldeee ade te taded wo 
of gerneh a fed? Bohmenmeser Bae eagntbadt whit badcoqer ‘ghBOL bet 
woud Sd of wid YO Bavet sagome Ode 0O.9ET 1) te mun ee cot berets 
eseimery oct mo MOLL # Of Beltiene sew tenatelqawe Mita ter Rae 
“po Frwdo od ye gabvoed o codtt! dmdalgmes Yo Ltid ed ad DectteeeD 
boredne ahy mott Keldeqia eeroeh off .erodax e*xetaumk Ome of BNORiqwoRe i 
srueiiot as ‘eh ebotabinerg si dotton ait Hodde mega toartuoe’ ‘oir ] 
“cl et Sal glen A ee * | 
O8er iat tous onsokdy © ; 2G Raho ry — 
oBPA ee re teva be ; 4 

" oath Lsshenantébat 02 —— 

_ Sdt ee awoad rationiered . 

, —— dé "eee ue Gn 

oy 7: 33 ‘iets Se an non A Pci : om @ be ve 

ee atont ini segnoiso ctéh ann beak ——— oe TORTS —* 
" nogk — — 

— —— — —— 

— — ert 7 






















One Front steel stairs as per plan to receive 
terragzo risers and tread. 


Stair railing brackets. 


door openings sre to Se made to receive 211 door 
hardware. 

Drawings are to be submitted to the general contractor 
by the ornamental iron contractor for the approval of the 
— contractor, as to Construction, design, dimensions, 
Cte 


Work is to be done within a ressonable length of time 
and in a first-class workmanlike manner. 


All of the above the ornamental contractor agrees to 
furnish and install for the sum of Sixteen Hupdred and 
Ninety Seven and 60/100 Deliars, $1697.60. 

Payments of 85% of the manufactured and installed 
work are to be made as the work progresses, balance 30 
dsys after final completion. 


Aece pted. 
F. PF. SMITH WIRE & IRON WORES, INC, 


Per F. Ff. Smith, 
President. 
Accepted, 
Laskey é Laskey, 
Per }. Laskey, 
Witneaseth S. Leaskey.® 
From the evidenee before the Master, it appears that shortly 


after the execution of the contract, work began under it, end that 
the work was completed about December lst, 1930; that shortly there- 
after and repeatedly complainant made demands upon defendant fer the 
amount claimed to be due, to which demands he received no response 
until January i93th, 1931, when complainant received the following 
letter: 


"attention Hr. F. FP. Smith 


¥. P. Smith Wire & Iron Yorks, 
2340 Clybourn Avenue, 
Chisago, tll. 


avisoer ef malg teq s4 otinta Loote re 
| abort ans eaeie'ok —“ secs 


ae 
* i 


- 
eS eee Pe ee em eee 


 etedoawd! yatiter — — 


"eed Ie eviever of sbam eo of ons — root J 


— 2 Loves edt et hostindwe os 
See eis faarsn0p Letoaey 8 elf vot todeatsénes | i amt 
; aasiolaaomsh .agined olsoutTsecee oF es stosoetiaes dex * 


eee eee a 





g8£ .2 ved ba. £2 o tae D me | 
TE ee ere ee Cat ol 
stentem siiicamizow veelo~ters? # ad * 


ot eo — 02*8 eit ¢ 
bars aoseeiet % 





—— 


bolistant bas — ont te i vig) tek 
O& epaaied ysonestgeta teow od ee ‘ 
—— ent? = rote, aaa —— 


——— hig’ SRE ee 
SOE: ARO ORE SATE RE I” * 
stds er, oC —* * * a * 
| | | Sdeebbbeds dense hen? Rete ee 
| ; , estat Re cee en sae — 
Al⸗rocla dade ateccqe #2 rsann od? soto — * ont sort 
tard eee vt webu eged era efoottne 9 et 2 a Bau 
| ~oradt yittode vente yowes: ak 73 ‘in EER pres | 
| 9a? xo ‘tuabmoteb neqe ebamseb —* pal te 
—— anoqeoe ox bevtonen OM ehanneb dotde Ot bub od of bomtnfo — 
gatwosia® ad? heyteoor —— 9 note — ster 4 et sail 


















ee ee 
a) 
>. 


sant * J 9 “as ay 4 inrest F 
tte 4 Pal ae tavo oz · ai akon ha —— 


—— 
ik Re | 
i esto | * weaw ae 
itr 


J va * 
ae ‘ A A 4 
— PO ee ame 
. , J a4 a 
Pia’ J ‘ * 
+ ’ a 4 
' ag iat - : — a 
Oe ee 9 J 4 
* sia B ct OY eT — F Cones kee 
. 8 
— ae 
at , ea Seer: 
8 * * * 
aa r 





Gentlemen: 

In reply to your letter of the 16th inst., 
please be advised that payment will not be made on the 
materials furnished for buildings 1902-04 South Michigen 
qeavused an Anstalied severaing te the terms ef our oom 
tract with you dated August 7, 1930. 

Yours very truly, 

Laskey & Laskey, Per 5. Laskey." 

Up to this time, complainant had not been sdvised that there wae any 
Complaint made by defendants as to the work done, or of any claim that 
the contract had not been performed according to the terms thereof, 

It appears from the record that the defendant, Devid 
Laskey, is « builder by profession; that he actively participated in 
the construction of the building in question, was present most of 
the time when the work contracted to be done by complainant was in 
progress, and that he then made neo complaint as to the character of 
the work. The Master found that defendant's conduct amounted te an 
acceptance of the work, as did the trisi court. 

Among the witnesses ealied were several experts, who 
testified on behalf of the respective parties,and se is frequently 
the case, their testimony, as indicated by the record, is partisan. 

Gne Elmer Gylleck, an architect called by defendant, testi- 
fied thet the work was crudely done and not in » good workmanlike 
manner, He further stated that a fair price for the work would be 
£400.00. 

Rudolph Charles Srunner, drafteman, designer, ornamental 
iron estimator and erection man, also testified on behalf of the 
defendants that the work done by complainant wes not first class, snd 
thet it is not worth more than $600.00. 

Morris Laskey, a brother of defendant David iaskey end a 
builder, testified that a fair price for the work done would be $225,990 


cePeat 4t06 edt te corer {Hor 08 — eas ae 
steak dott iguet bO-S06E te —— 2s beetvbe hese wt wa 
~swiem goed fom ear th e2 — ee tacd Se — 32 Sunere 
“ae tuo to amret ede ote oon helletard baw . 
Oc8i ,f — Seteh voy dtie @ 
— ndsiiven gut — ae 
| | ceeded @ yelled! bros Lemony 
wie sew erst? ¢edd beokvbs meot tou hed anamtesamoo Kp aids of @ 
tad? atalo que te TO e008 arox oft of 2 etnabasteb ys shew thEslqwee 
Looted? emxet odd OF gutbrooss hemeettaq seed ‘ton bad toartago ons 
bivel ,tanbasteb edt tails ——— nae agent 
ai betag ielerey veviten wd bode joteeotowy yd tebited we at toda 
to feos tresesq saw wolseoup i> Qe adi bet ade to ——E—— edt 
“i gow taentalgmes yd ocob md of betesttace Aron edt ande eal? eid 
te tegestads ant of as tateiquos on abs aoda —* tad ban seaetgons 
4 oF betawome toxhaos attaedasteb tats havo? x9teRi oft oXnoe edt 
fru00 Laiet od? Bib ae .kvow edt to _ Sonstqenns 
ody ,siregxe iazevee stew beliad eeesent ie. ord Py 
Utnougett st as dae nottreg evidoeqee:r ont * ——— se beitites? 
saneidted af ,brover odd ys Doteothad as cuionatwes xed adeno ods 
_=btest etnabsered we hel ies tootidore ae “elostie e xomlt a0 
"ga Lecomttow booy a sh ton baa onob vobure | ed ron 942 * bat 
ad Shoo tow ond wo — * — — * _ tonne 












: oh ie Tee Bpearoana 
et to TLesdad re en aeo⸗ oats rd nottoors * ——— 
bas ,nesic fet it tom new tunatalquoo yd snob drow edt tads 


| 004000 mast exon Muer tus ei #8 ande 
! s bas xedesi biveti ‘Puahasted te redtond SPT 
00.8554 od Divew saob drow oid eer obing chad Shih bent pot” eas tebe 















Albert W. Gee Jr., a Givil engineer and a graduate of the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that he had had about 
35 years experience as = designer and supervisor of construction, and 
that in his opinion the work done on the building was not a first 
Class workmanlike job. 

For complainant, O. Herbert Hill, ornamental iron menufsct- 
urer, testified that he had had « large experience in the business. 

He atated that he had examined the work done by complainant for 
defendant, and that it was well done, and that a fair price for the 
game would be 2,150.00. 

Charlies G, Christensen, » structural engineer and designer 
of reinforced concrete and structural iron work for buildings, testi- 
fied for complainant that he examined the finished structure and 
that it looked like « good job. 

The record filed in the esse consists of 850 pages. Hany 
days were spent in the teking of testimony and the hearing of argu- 
ments. There is a great contrariety of testimony, both of alleged 
fact and opinion, given by the witnesses produced by the respective 
parties. The Master saw and heard these witnesses, and had an oppor- 
tunity te pass upon their credibility or lack of it. In ite latest 
announcement on the question as to the credit to be given to the 
finding of a waster, the Supreme Court in Hogg v. Eekherdt, 343 Ill. 
246, said: 

"The testimony of this witness hes been subjected 

to a severe attack by counsel for appellee. The master 
heard the witness and had an opsortunity to study him 
while he was on the witnese stend.* 

By the contract between the parties, the amount to be paid 
is stated, and from the testimony, we find that the court was justified 
in holding that complainant has a lien for the sum fixed by the decree, 






ott to etovbery » hen coontgae Livio « ,.cb eo ow ¢xedi 
tuods Dad bad od tadt paltitgor s¥atientive? Yo Meetitys 
ban yoltountarse to sonivaeqye bas tongteeh « ee déis 
gevit 2 ton sew gathiiud ade ae nob drow ot fie bed 


-gostunem sore Latnemssto Atun erag⁊ ou a⸗n ia lauso tot 
aneraieud edt ai senelioqxe oatad & bait Dad ed soda deortiteot qe 
. ,, iat tnantesqeoo Ye saek Stow oute ‘bontnaxe ‘Bed ad tant beteta * 
od? sot soiq tiat 2 ant bas ,saob flow enw Lae test bas _stuabaste 





Rts ae 
wempiend. brs ‘geentgae — a. a 32 & — thie 


~tteot yagathiind rot drow ngti Leytourcte das stexon0e Beotat 
bas exutourte Dedatnl? ad? heaimexe ed tedit tasntaiquoe * bet 
_ wel Seog # oath bexook tt sade 
wat. »eegeq 086 te stetenoe — ett ak bOLsY roves, ea? 





estan kt 


Hie HA 


begelia te. dted. pope: * gridiron in — pee 
eyitsogess sit yd heoubotq noarontin aft ye aevty ,toiatqe bar, font 
~togde ac bad hae ,esaeeatin enedt Sised ban woe weteel oc? .aetdzeg 
_ Saotel ath al tf Yo deal to eid lid tdere sion asgu eaeg ot yttawt 
ott of movig od of there edt oF ae. soiveous ad? Go auanoouoas 

-fik BOS ,toseddon ov yuoll ad tied oxorqut one ereen » to patbas 


* as 
betoatd and sed geeatiw aide to YWonttent 

— Sat Ceeateuae Sek SUaMON He mmaned atten a ot 
aid yout ot ————— cm Bowtl na Hag A an call edd = A 


biey eo of tives ett acd abonted tuntiads ett YR OOTY” 
‘peltitant eew trw00 od? todd batt ow sWoniteed eit mort wae 





—————— ——— 


a —— 


* RNS SHY © (tabs — 


While the Master's fess seem to be sil out of proportion, 
when the amount involved is taken into consideration, still when 
the great amount of time consused in the hearing and the number of 
witnesses Oalled by @nech party sre considered, we do not feel 
justified in disturbing the decree in this regard. 

For the reasons above stated, the deeree of the Superior 
Sourt is affirmed. 


AVFTRMED, 


WILSON, PJ, AND HEBEL, J. CONCGUR. 








(— gftedtwogone Be tue, Leos ef meme eek pitoomant 
* —A———— need on | 








* Ben 


me ve 








tat qreckeal — “i — sue, et et — baa * —* 





ee Pa. ae OMe Yee mime hy ee ne aa a 
we Lee So IIY Vee e Gand 





. —* — aes aa — 
















es 


4 * — —— geet 


5 peat, Dyoawr 5 


is 
| SR ORES 





84 ‘ 





huis Veh. ae 


ey £09; see 





| * mapas) ae hal fan, gate 


Pek, ste ek wit Be, 26: bad hid — pers 





; gat oF OTL a ad ob gabe — J Se, — ———— 





Sot RON Be 

a OE a See 
5 — Bs or eit wharsonis re goo | ka east 
Ry Sa # Bates monte ae bd 


fehoiyihet ad tant sta anette ‘yeti ——— sei i u 


OLE Kong aes Pte oes fore batt aa ‘pemeetenst Hie 
ma oven hei 








Sahar 


* ame * 





mite Gt Wakt’t yen eal 





36188 , 
WALTON SCHOOL OF COMMERCE, a ) i ⸗ 
Corporation, f é — 
x ra rea 
(Plaintiff) appellant, ⸗ ⸗ 
MUNICIPAL COURT 
Ve / 
OSBORNE LYSAE, 
4 — 
> 
(Defendant) Appellee. PAY cu — Ps 6 63 er 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE GALL DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendant, upon the 
verdict of a jury, in a suit on a written contract between plaintiff 
and defendant, by the terme of which and for the consideration of 
$186.00, to be paid to plaintiff by defendant, plaintiff was to furnish 
to defendant certsin lessons in business law, sceounting and finance. 
In the stetesent of claim, to which a copy of the contrast dated 
Maroh 26th, 1950, is attached, plaintiff alleges thet it performed 
all the covenants of the contract; that defendant paid $93.75 on 
account, and that there is due plaintiff the sum of $92.25. By the 
contract, defendant's payments were to be made in monthly installments. 
In his affidavit of merits, defendant states thet prior te the execou- 
tion of the contract, plaintiff represented to defendant that the 
course of teaching proposed, contemplated « system of teaching 
designed to instruct the defendant in the fundamentals of accounting; 
that the plan of teaching ineluded a number of courses of which only 
one was sent to defendant. Defendant has filed no brief in this 
appeal. 

G. Tf. Hoyte, the office manager of plaintiff's corporstion, 
testified that after the exeoution of the contract he sent all the 
materisis necessary for the course of study, but that defendant did 
not proceed with his studies. On July 7th, 1930, plaintiff received 
a ietter from defendsnt in which defendant stated: ‘I may not begin 








sates verettananee tk Neate 
nee ae — ya te — — ae a 
380 SRS J—— ‘ey yn 


sees — ysk bolit ‘noiaigd * 
.⁊bad MOT W HOTKISO aur auaavraue duaH BOTTEUL — —J 
ed? moqu ytushnoXab ‘woY ¢usmptut # wovt Leeqqa as et aide 
ttitaiely asewted feetimeo netticw s se tive # ak ,.yrul & to soleroy J 
te aoitetebieses eft tet bee detdw te setet odd yt wiebaeteb hae ; 
 detornt of saw itabale stisbusted yt Thitaielg o¢ Sing od oF 100.0888 
— Bae gnitavooor ,wel eacaiend ai waganel alatzeo saskaoksd ot 
beteh toottmoo ad? te yee a Molde ef mutate te gumptate oat al 
&aarotieg 32 ted? aegeile ttisaielqg ,bedeatia af orer attas stores 
ae 8f.£88 bkeq tashasted tedt Ggeautnes edt to stnanevee wit La 
adt Yi .88.80¢ te wwe edt Yiidetely oub et eredd tedt ane «tavoees 
wsteowllesank yidtaom ak shan @¢ of oxew etaemyeq o'danhacteb «toartavo ? 
-yoexe odd ot rolaq tad? se¢ete dahbasteb ,etixoa to divebitts etd at : 
edt todt tasbasteb of begaseorqox WEléniaiq ,éeersaee ad? To ott 
yaidesed to eeteys a botalqmetaco sbovegang gaideset te setwoo : 
jaaitawooes to aletanmebast oft ai tanhestoh edt toustent of banylecd — 
ine dolde te esetvoe to tedaua « daberlent gaideset te asia odt bade 3 
aldt ag teted on bait eed tushasted .dushasteb of fave saw eno 













wwiteroytes e'ttlinisiq Yo teganen seltte eft .atyol .? 2D 

ef? iia ¢taee od tonnctaen od? to aodduoexe ede xodte teadt . 

bh inebasteh tadd tud ,ybute to setuoo add tot yxsevooen elaized. 
bevisost Ytitatniq .O8CL AT ylvb a0 seedhute etd ditty besvor tom 
ained ton yeu I" shotate ¢nabasteb dotde at tachneted moxk todvel a 


2 

my ‘lesson’ work until later,” «and explained his, defendant's fail- 
ure to make pest due payments. On September 23rd, 1930, plaintiff 
received another letter from defendant, promising paywent. Both 
prior and subsequent to these letters from defendant to plaintiff, 
plaintiff had repestediy written to defendant, expressing disappoint~ 
ment at his, defendent's, progress, and urging defendant to proceed 
with the course of instruction. The record shows that lessons and 
docunents were sent to defendant by pleintiff to be used in con- 
nection with the course of instruction, which wes a11 scenducted and 
to be conducted by correspondence, 

Defendant testified that he received = set of lessons which 
were to be sent back to plaintiff, but which defendant did not do. 
Plaintiff performed the contract on its part and there is nothing 
in the reoord which excuses defendant for the non-performance of 
the contract by him. It is the opinion of this court that the trial 
eourt was in error in overruling the motion for e new trisi end in 
entering judguent against the plaintiff. The judgment is reversed 
and remanded, 

REVERSES AND REMANDED, 


WILSON, Pod. AND HEBEL, J. SONCUR, 


~iiet sttashavted ,eid Beatelque has 8 *,yretad Seseus dell —— 4* 
Yhivatelg OSA, yhx8S xedmetqet a2 .etnomyeq oud toad ‘eden ‘ot ‘es 
tok .tneeyey patedeore staebasleb mort woteel ‘xedfons havioovs 
.tiitatedg of taxbasted wort avettel eeodd of tuavsdedue bao rokey 
~tntoqasath galagerqre dashasteb of aetvinw Benge bed Yidtalelq 
ety .etensbasied ,els ve tron 
bas eneasel tadt anode ‘rode: edt’ 4 anak te ⸗e rwoo ost dtiw 
—too ai Soea od ot titatste yd tashasteb of toss otew ataonveob 
bar betoubaon tis ace w dokde ———— 1 we somos edd dtiw aottoan 
— Sendhnogesr set W Sovcatinn’ 64°64 
takstw anosasl to toe 2 bovievex ed fads bortisend ‘tuebadtot iia * 
ob ten S2b danbasted dolde dud d0nd dane’ odor “1 
| "pabtton of onsit baw tuaq ati uo soutoon oie bowaotney htabell 
to conantetesq~nor eat tot tnebasten euone (otde brooot vt ot ak 
Keind odd tostt dxwo0 elds * ablatas oat ab ot mea 
ad bas dates » won * mt no tton ‘odd paklonzeve ‘a | 
becrevor ‘al moma, oat ataia * @ teategs pede yank 


tout ige 


t fet 








— wot : * 














J—— qua ‘Gaenavan 4% 
eo TO yA Ree Cae Tl Bae 


— Aobaot ay Saat Ge shed ii 


Vay Paces oe * — — Si 


; acne ee ae 
— oistaant Ye aete ott Faas 
sO RAIS af FAae Hew Bae 


Pk 


2.36 wcoltepere od¢ aotie gage 
i , git le oetwie 64% wet 
ersivne wht Adin Bepoewcy thm 


; —— Pe METRE 2 









i } * ua Pal — 
/ y — 
FA jf \ Zw f [ j 
Z A i — 
PwRIT Gri ERROR j 
/ f" / / 


TG GIROULT COURT / 


36017 
DAVID O'CONNELL, Jr., 2 minor by 
David J. O'Connell, his father , 
and next friend, 

Plaintiff in Error, 


SOOK COUNTY. 
270 I.A. 638° 


Opinion filed May 34, 1933 


Ve 
HEWRY J. JEPSON, 
Defendant in Error. 


WR. JUSTICE HEMEL DELIVERED THR OPI BIOR OF THE GovRT. 

This cause is before this court upon o writ of error to the 
Cireuit Court of Cook County, wherein the piaintiff as the next 
friend of David O'Connell, Jr., « minor, filed » auit for personal 
injuries in an action of trespass on the ense sgainat Henry J. Jepson, 
defendant. Trial was had before the court and a jury, and at the 
ejese of the hearing the jury returned « verdiét of not guiity. To 
reverse the judgment entered on this verdict, this writ was sued 
out by the plaintiff. 

fhe facts in substance are, that on the 3rd day of January, 
1931, the defendant was driving his autemobile south on famen svenue 
and turned west on Gird street, in Chicago, when the plaintiff, a 
boy about nine years of age, was crossing 63rd street in «a north- 
easterly direction, near the intersection and towarde the sidewalk on 
the northwest corner of 63rd street and Damen Avenue, and wae struck 
and injured by the defendant's oar. Just prior to the accident the 
plaintiff's minor stepped from an eastbound street oar at this inter- 
section, which had stopped at the southwest corner of Damen Avenee 
and 63rd street, intending to return to his home. 

There is evidence that at the time the defendant turned at 
the intersection, the sutomebile operated by him was running at a 
speed from ten to fifteen miles per hour, and thet no signal was 
sounded by a horn or other signsl device st that time. The plaintiff 


4) 


XF ~~ © \ 
—— iG 


" \ 
| i 8& 
\ “J \ 






\ 
— bane ph ¥ Toe Saumme es ey 
* J ris yt wal \¥ es wi thnim a yoth od 0 aivad 


odiak ald — fea has. 





THUG, AOR, vt. ; — — ng AH iy f peer 
\ oral mt ‘hamid 
& ope # Sieiee Bene 
‘Syhno0d 1000 
680 ay 0 1J oo — — * * i aban shia oy Ste 
* xt 
SCL SS yall perit etactgo ewer eNEre + oe cee eae Aeee 





Ao THES wotario ‘ia? Ganaviiaa saa — sax 

od? ot rorte Yo tte « abau “tulos elde ‘rot ed Gl semen a2 nat iw ae bteeer 

¢xon edt es 32itakelq edt sturdy ,ydaued dood to Pxue ing row 
 Ladoeten #8t ¥tus « bell «reatkm s th _tieuacd'o * * 

stoegel wb ‘yan teategs decd sid¢ ao denqeort Yo acltes as a Ge 

off #0 Und ⸗ bas dxyos ond stated bad ean Le — 

of oitlivg toa Yo — 2 bearwées vex ‘ed gulteod bags 

Baas ace thew ade —— andes no bors tas — — agg 


“hg etmielg odd wd ** 
eutilant Yo yab Bré adit mo tad yore sonadadse ai weoet edt —* 
euneve atwel so Atuvoa sitdasetas gid yeivith acu tushaste ode er i 

® ,Utitatela odé ody yogaolde at toute bate no tenn Dennut has 3 


~dttos 2 ak gearte Seb8 gafesere gee ates te ane cate twos 


eh 











3 2 hy 


B86) $2 pate ia 








m0 Ahewebie odt ebrawot bas nottoeerstai edd ‘ena saottoorib tesens — 


Howrte sor baw .oumovh seme bas teorts bsS8 to cemm00 deewsszon ote — 
of? ¢aebiovs ed? of rolte few .ta0 edaebasteb eft yo derezeat bao 


-retnt atdt te 90 toerte bavodtero ae moxt boqaete voaks art aala ia . 


agtevs sensi to teatoe? taontiuen odd ts hoqqess bast fed tee etoktoes 
semod ald of axvter of galbsosak ,2oorte ef) bas 
te beaxwt taabaeteb odt anit odd ta tattt ganehive ak oxedt 
® te gaiaawt sew mie yw beteteqe oLidomotus edt sodtoontosat ode 
sow Leagie on tad? han cont on ent Se Oh 


See 


tRidnladg od? ome? tedd fo soiveh Lowgie zedto to anod 2 Ww behaves 


— 





[NS 
* 





3 

sustained severe injuries by renson of the force of the contact of 
the sutomebile with his bedy, and shen the automobile was stopped, 
he wes lying back of it about four feet west of the sidewalk line. 

The defendant teetified that he did not see the boy until 
the boy was within two or three feet of the curb, There is conflict 
in the evidence «s to the point where the boy was at the time of the 
accident. | i. ; 

The question of fact and the circumstances surrounding the 
accident are for the jury. For the reason that the case is to be 
retried, this court will not consider the question of whether the 
verdict is againet the manifest wekght of the evidence. 

The plaintiff compisins of the following instruction; 

"You are inetructed that the mere happening of an secident, 
the part Of the Gefentant, nor is it evisenee invane of 
SRR” Seat? pon stens Spu"tes tuseaats tate tea? 
inatructiona of the court, that the injury to the plsintiff 
was the result of a mere accident, or one which was unevoid- 
able, or which occurred without negligence on the part of the 
defendant, then you should return « verdict of not guilty." 
and contends that the instruction is prejudicial in that it does not 
atate the several duties required ef the defendant under the cireum- 
stence@s surrounding the accident, end is erroneous in directing a 
verdict of not guilty. it is te be noted that the jury wes instructed 
that they were to deteruine whether the injury was the result of « 
mere accident, or one which wee unavoidable, and, finally, the jury 
was instructed in these words, *or zhieh occurred without negligence 
on the part of the defendant." 

The instruction in question directs « verdict of not guilty 
if the injury to the plaintiff was the result of a mere accident. 
This ingtruction is misleading and should have been modified by the 
insertion of the words, “without negligence of the defendant," after 


the word “accident.” Cohen v. Weinstein, 231 Ill. App. 84. 


SE en — 


= a 


AR Se — — — 





— ———— tent a istottutera at noLtountec! ‘old jade aie * 


otoustent sow vest edt tot betes od of ab ai weston, jen to | 








“ * foetaoo od? to genet odt te mousse 6 — arewo⸗ — —— 

 sbeqqete mew oLidowe turn edd mode baa “ytbed ald sein a on 
eau Alauaes edt to seer fant aot Suede #2, 0 ‘ond — 
iitay wed odd ese tom 540 of godt bertavaos taabaoten ott 


| 3⸗ el ated? «dius asi? te fost sence te ont abdétw » sow oye 


— fe 9 ea oe. 


ql a ‘aad it ta dow yor one oxedy taleq oT tee * — * 


—E— 


by Wie 


me Sd oe a? Le ¥ ea eLiz ao au 


—— anit gathaxorre eronntaauetio ade bar gost eo neiteenp. adt 


MY eg at af apap odd tedt moasex wt 20%. _sTwh edt sot xa taabtonn 
Nee ccd 
* ratte ee te apiteouy pe aah innoe ton Site trae etiid J 
——— Daye ee 


ssouab iva a * er teotinnn ce Paakage al 


ict 








Seber 


Raat sh ate hee. 
aattub Lex even add @ : 


HAs how rigothe: be Rgeu 





wemOLED ont Tehaay tuabaoted oni to vedas 
it gasgootsh as evosnorT8, es bas stmebiooe ot 


» ee 


sf 






yo gg : rie eee ret 
& %o aivept od? enw ytubas add xedgede oaimrede id 95 Ow 


Reco Mie 


oo ett, of atiisast J Loab lava⸗ per hot tw ano ‘xe “ata 


whee Suey 
pent 


guia s igen ivediin ketavege | Kode 73 shbrow ooode ak botort 
he ee ee 
*.tanhasdeb oat to tusq eds me 


j aes 
Lie  ghie ay OY 


tie | toa to tothzew 8 atoone “aoateoun ab aottourtent RS 
staehions exm 4 to tiuner ett sew wuentatg ods ot — od? tt 
ads yd bolt thos HHO dene Pluode bas patboeietn at possourtost ** 


ite pe m ih WOE Bilt i) Mi by . 444 
— — i ot to é ———— ont 5— 
“etmgpqergh edt to exam Lge 3 Po * ates ! 
op PB AAA, ghEE, £88, | | —— iw 
kee ne oe ee eo Aetoue at '- — oa 












The rule is that if the injury is the combined result of an 
aeoident and negligence in the operation of the instrumentality 
Causing the injury, snd the scoident would not have ccourred but for 
such negligence, and the danger could not have been foreseen or 
avoided by ordinary carg, then the defen‘ant will be Liable to the 
party injured. City of Aurora v. fuifer, 56 11]. 270. City of Shiengo, 
¥. Sheehan, 113 Ill. 658. 

The instruction did not combine want of negligence of the 
defendant with the occurrence of the sccident, which would be necesanry 
to justify the giving of it to the jury, 

%@ cannot agree with the defendant's theory that the jury | 
was properly instructed when the court told the jury in three wsya 
that if the occurrence in question happened without negligence on 
the part of the defendant, the jury should find the defendant not 
guilty, The vice of the instruction is that the want of negligence 
of the defendant is not conjunctively made a part of the cause of the 
accident pointed out in the instruction. 

for the reasons above indicsted, the judgment ia reversed 
and the cause remanded. 

SUDGRENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMARDED. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HALL, J. ConoUR, 


— 
ae te tiusor benkdmon od¢ af yrotat ott tt Sadt ob oivt oft ei . 
Vilermeneyens ode te nosterege ont me oonegtiyen han arerles · 
20? tot heroes avast ton bisow jnsbioos eds bas ——— ot? on —5 
ge aeseotot used eved ton binoe x9yae! edi bas ssonend tyea “Lat 


* or eidsil ef iliw dassaeted edd * — 8* ‘qreniine yd boblove 
bo ove .tit ae Re wes .bomwjat — 
ode te —— te tine snidago’ toa bib asleewetens edt 


| 
—J—— Binow dotde staabioos ady to eonormumes add dtiv tacvaet eb 
5 Byes: 
SEES. oho 
ite ss yee ee 
one ' ad? tad? yroed? a'tashacted edt Atty congs fonnao OF : 
“3 


ewer cond? mi vast est higt eaves ot nde botouttont gine core ai 
ae —— awo a ie — aoi e aus * porter oe at ted 
— bat thai ea 5 
oda pinata cpp — 
 tadieent and od a2 tuo: : 
— oh tunughat ost <botanibat oveds axosses od 3 a 
aes oebannes ‘seune ot ae 


. ; Pra Ge ——— oy Ree dade 
.GHGNARIS EBRVAD GMA USENEYER THaRGEOL 
bike serge — J morse #2 MY Bate ree atria 








ae a AA se te oecie 
* nw yods hast 
—V — 2—2— “heen 
Aer we ae peau’ tate meaty 
O iin ® oi) aaghe * PRK ode a 

elo wedy aaltote Gh melee ets wit Pe 
F ———— 1 Se Pare VPLS ase Bie ay Sat gtk Bay =» 
e Eko 2 ; i ey eo BE ales oo 0 sore =. — 
® ate tyes Oe tage and wait w. ‘sosdivegs 


i —D a” ine 





Fal 5 


36065 ty a * fei om 
ff £ & f } 
HERBERT 8, YOUNGQUIST, Jf APPEAL PROM / Seton, 
y. a ⸗ / 
asl 4 errourr bovar / 
v | f 
e 
GREAT LAKES FINARCE GCOnPORATI OR» GOOK OGUNTY. 
m @orporation, and ALBSENT #. FRORHDE, 2 7 T A ia y 
: r é q 3 f 
Appeliants. Vo telle O 3 5 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

HH. JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVEX ED THER OPIRLON OF THE COURT. 

This appeal is by the defendants from « judgment entered by 
the court upon a verdict of a jury finding the defendants guiity and 
assessing the plaintiff's damages in the sum of $1590.00, 

This action ia founded upon an allegstion of wunlicicus 
prosecution by the defendants, and the pringipsal defenee is that the 
defendants acted upon advice of counsel, which they claim is « 
complete snd absolute defense te an setion for malicious prosecution 
where it appears that a full, frir «nd truthful statement of facts 
is made to an attorney and the defendant acta upon his advice that 
in his prosecution of the charge there was probable eause. 

The facts in the case are, substantially, thet the pleintiff 
is a young married man and has lived in Chicago all of his life; 
is engeged in the automobile business with one Lowis G. Kailer, as 
& Co-partner under the trade name of Kniler-Youngquist Motor Ssles; 
that he is also engaged in the florist tuesiness, which enterprise 
he conducts with his wife, but devoted most of his time te the avte- 
mobile business, The Kailer-Youngauist fotor Sales bas sinee 1927 
been engaged in the retail automobile business as factory representa- 
tive of the Olds Motor Works; since 1928 the business has been con- 
dueted at 5031-5033 Lroadway, Chicage. uk 

From the plaintiff's evidence it appears that he had never 
been arrested prior to the arrest in question, and thet he had never 


been charged with any violation of law, or with » criminel offense, 
There is evidence that the plaintiff had a good reputation. 


; Min 
—R \ * 
va bs ; \ . h Rec al ‘ 

7 fa Pe Ce ae W jh ts — * asta 






\ ; — 

iN A — —V— 
ai a0 oo vOnED — err oe Bisa 
\ 


 HOLPAROBIID ’ tas tat 
maa J — one afiod BLOTS 


tN Ren A 
Ed ny c " * Le ee 
tae Se eth as 


3 —— heath kh 
Coe! ee Bai ip PRS ri Ny, 


ae aes ret 


— 

audts aur go MOLKTIO aur caaar taue sansa sorreuy — ‘ie isi 

1 berodme 2 tnowgbut a mon? etaedaotes ons we at taoqae 
—2— — ————— aauean Vu, 8 te geabuew 2 ! a moe! i 
(3 90.0685" to we ot as aegeaed — * ‘ 



















_aton? * toeaedots — aust 1 teat J 
“gad? sotvbs eid noqe eton tasbasten, oe bate eurettn an 0 
— ——— orodt — ode Yo anisuor 
Wktalnig odd add Llettuntedre ors Qane ade 2 etost edt 
iets atd to Lis ogeotdd at hevtt nes fin ane Polevam gavoy # et 
as steLbed of absrond este tobe anoaheod alidonotion edt at — 
josie’ totol teiupguwol-teiled to — ahurs oa? wehaw eat nt a 
galtqredae doids ,weechend tatroit. eat at bosagae oake —J * a 
wotus off of omit aii lo saqm deteveb dud yotiw ahd ditty etoubseo od 
| TORL sonte ead vein} cegoM @eiupgmuel~eediad off .cneutend oftdem 
—ataoeorgat yYroIvet en sarateud Siidemetus dietet eft mi. bogrgas goad 
“#09 need and unentawd edt B88 soate — ahi, * 
| sGynnldd _Yowbeott REOEMLE —— be 
toven hed od ted? erasgqa #h eomebive — oe most 




















sroltatuqet Boog # bad vesentasa ant est pao exeat 


On December 25, 1950, A. We Froehde, one of the defendants, 
signed a complaint for the arrest of the plaintiff on the charge 
of obtaining money under false pretenses. On January 3, 1931, plain- 
tiff was arrested and caused to appenr before the exemining Magis- 
trate on January 5, 1931. On that date the ease was continued to 
January 14, 1931, and on this date the cauaze was tried before the 
court which issued the warrant. Witnesses were heard for both the 
prosecution and the defense, and the plaintiff was discharged and 
the case dismissed, 

It slse aprears from the evidence that Kailer~Youngaquisat 
Motor Sslegz had been discounting its conditionsi ssles coentraet and 
notes without recourse with the defendent Finance Gorporation. The 
contracts were prepared on forms furnished by the defendant sompany. 

On October 31, 1930, one Harold Fields purchased from 
KailegeYoungquist Kotor Sales a new Viking sedan automoblie. The 
Motor Sales contract was prepared on the usual form of the Great Lakes 
Finanee Corporetion, and after an investigation, the defendant finance 
eompany approved the conditional ssles contract and note evidencing 
the indebtedness, and discounted the paper. 

From the fsets in evidence, the Olda Moter Yorks manufactured 
8,000 Viking cars in 1929 between the months of March and November. 
The cars sanufactured in the latter part of the year were fitted 
with improved piston and piston rings. The automobile seld te Fields 
was & n@w Gar and wee equipped with the new piston and piston rings, 
and while it was re Ss we @erly part of the yesr, it was 
identical with the esrs purskasea by the Clde Wotor Works in the 
latter months of 1929, 

The conditional ssles contract and note for $1,251.54, 
were executed by Fields, the purchaser, snd sold to the defendant 
Sompany for the sum of £1,040. The note was to be paid in eighteen 





esinebanted edt Yo eno ,obieari oY A 40ERL * aeaaevon ao ‘cual 
agtetio eff ao Ttituinig sadt to testis ont zo? our dewe 9 é Dongta 


thet AOL 4% yrsumal ao ,neametene og int sebay yosom potsiatda ts 


. tetgell gulaimexe edt erated tasqgn oF beewro Ber bateorre cow Thee 

° ‘gf bammitaes asw eaa0 eds atebh godt oo steet ae anna ao etert 
alt exoted ‘he tet ade shuse ssaelliaaiead aidd oe bas .f80L ai prema 

eit dtod rot fused oxen nenanmti® .tauriow ad? baweat doidw tewes 
dae — ew Vebnatate ade bas — edd het ao ktueoeong 

:  ebeewtanis = dog! 

tetupgasol—reltel tet? conshive otf wort useage @ale #1 es 

bus tomtiags aelen Ienoltifnes eth gattaweeets aved hat eit cata 
‘ed? .aeltereqtot sensedt taebasteb edt diiy setwesex mwoddts or et 
\yasquoe tnebasted oy yd bedtelerst — — 
Moxt beesdored ehie2t bioreH ene ,OUGL An eederoo ao — 

‘adtt —A ———— 
vexed deotd Od Yo unot Lnvau ot HO Barnckäen daw — adled — — 
— gushaoteh edd roltegiteewnt an tettw Ban  eoles " 
aehensbive ‘ston has toottaen u8lne Laiottesnde oat bevoteie : ame 
staqeq ed? Detimpelh Sha — 

horwiestunen extow roto! ohio ott jeonebivd wi atest edd wort 
— ban dotel'te akthdn' edt aboreed Ober Greeks SARtiY 0008 


















Siddia Stew’ dby: Gd 4h babe hb dak Gab ed peedbeiealiad ete’ eae ! 


shielt of Sloe eLidemoten oft .agnit aotete bad noteta bevetent cod 


wagntlt xotadg bee sotety wen 943 dehy Séeqtuos Baw bas tHe wen © oe 


‘enw ti .teoy off to veg vires edt ak berefostunan sae tk au bate 
betysostunem 
edt mf evel coded sbi ede yi Rwexteaee ntos ods ttin inotinebs 


© R000 20 addon toreee 


he Tt £8 aot Stow baw daurtnoo elo innottshaeo ont — 
trabasteb od? of Sipe han (tomato eat ebient we botuoere orew 
— SI 8 080 Yo mon nok canna 


ome bbws Re orate 
t \ —* 








3 

monthiy installments of (69.53. The first installnent was due on 
the first day of December, 1930, and was in defawlt. After the 
default Froehde, slso a defendant, telephoned to both Kailer and 
Youngquist, and stated, in substance,that unless Youngquist paid the 
total amount of money due he would throw him in jail, which call was 
supplemented by a letter on the atationery of the defendant company 
and signed by Froehde as vice-president, to the effeot that unless 
the money in payment of the two contracts, the terms of which were 
grossly misrepresented, was received, they would place the mptter in 
the hands of their attorneys whe advised them that they had good 
ground for both civil and criminal actions. The letter also calied 
attention to the fact that they believed that the officials of the 
Glds Hotor Works would not approve of this conduct on the part of 
any of their dealers, and if necessary they would lsy the facts before 
them, Thereafter, upon complaint of Froehde, the prosecution 
followed. 

The complaint of the defendants is that in the body of the 
sales contract the year 1930 wes inserted in the handwriting of the 
plaintiff as the year in which the sautemobile was manufactured, when 
as a matter of fact it wae manufectured in 1929, The defendant 
Froehde, an attorney admitted to practice law, sought the advice of 
Paul E. Price, whose standing in the legel profession was admitted 
by the plaintiff, and upon the adviee of Price, the plaintiff was 
arrested upon complaint made by Froehde, 

it aprears from the evidence thet Froehde submitted to his 
attorney the fact that the conditional sales contract contained a 
statement that the car financed was a 1930 Viking; that thie was false 
and thet the car was a 1939 Viking, and that Froehde stated that in 
certain other transactions with the plaintiff concerning s car sold, 


& 

rtgsbenge) ort 22 0m gd sari att .£8.08)°%e ofmentinfent yLdtaos 
“edd rerts “ tLamteb ak eow dora 0884 .Todasood to we foxtt a 

‘bas 19L2h¥ Atod of banvitqeled — 2 ons yohisor’ | 

ad? bing tetvpgaweY aes Laws ted?, sountedve ak wbotete bac — 
cov Lino Molds .Ltet at mid nord? bivow ‘ed au reaoa * —E Leto 
Usaaed tuchaeteb ei? to vrmottets edt me ‘tented & * “basasusizews 
eveiny fads sostte edt ot siaebieerq-9el¥ 86 dasorn donee bas 
orew dota to axed odd _etoertaes owt edt te trem yey ‘ad mon —* 
mi tet tas ef¢ sesig 5 weds ehovieoes one ,besaseorgatata Ye sor: 
boon bad yedt tadt mes Desivhs edn ayontotts ‘ghedt * ebaea * 
beiteo osia sogtes ot “sannites Lendmtes bas Livie tod rot bees * 
edt to alateltte ode dade howss Led yous ‘fade teat edt of wottnes$s 
to teaq od? mo foubneo aid? te svorage Jon bivew efzow totes obtd 
orb bed atost ads yet biuow yode Yrsseenen te bate seraiseb thadt Ye * 


aottusesor eds ——— te — nea hg 




















“add 10 led strait tate of sbuabeot bd 26 tctalgnoe’ 6” 


— 


edt ‘te gatéirabasd edt mi badteeai aoe O8el 09 ome — 


— aie $i 
fede doutoatuaae Bow elidomotun ont foide a aney ¢ an Yhitas : 


tashuoteh edt GREL ak boru@oatunan aan oh teat to wes ne 
i — * — pois 4 


te eotrbe odd J aad sottosxa oF bea dinbs ‘yortot ta as a 
bettishe enw aoteestorg Laget edt at patbante Ld “eed ne 


eee tis ae pee 


ew nieau⸗tia ont ended to soiree ade ow | bas ——— —* 


as —7— pike’ —— 
ahd on bos ¢ hadue shisort dade soashtes ade. aort era eaa⸗ : : 
| RRA Rwy 
a beutatnes toar aacud ——— Lenokt tone ade tad tonk os | 
—9 


eaiot aow eidd todd jantitY O86 » mow Rosannt? xo0 odd tadd 8 | ate 
at ded# Dotete obdeort — — 


—8 ‘#0 a palareenes niaulta ———— 
—— A aie 
























4 

the car was referred to in the conditional sales contract as new, 
when in fact it was a used car, The defendant Froehde did not convey 
to the lawyer when he sought his advise the plahoin use in the 
purchase of conditional sales contracte and promissory notes from 
Kailler-Youngquist Metor Ssles, which is in substance that Keiler- 
Youngquist Motor Sales would telephone defendant's company and 2 
clerk would take down the information in regard toa proposed pure 
chase, the make of the car, the year and model, selling price, down 
payment, and the unpaid belance. The defendant would then investi- 
gate the oredit references and onll the sales company and, if sstis- 
fied, approve the desl, The informetion sheet of the defendant 
Gompany would be checked as to its correctness, and values on similer 
automobiles would be compared. 

The rule of law isa that there must be « reliance by the owner 
of the property on the alleged false pretence, and the pretence must 
be the effective cause of inducing the owner to part with hie property. 
If the owner has knowledge of the truth or does not believe the 
pretence, or investigates it and parte with the property, relying 
entirely on the results of his investigation, the offense of obtaining 
money or property by means of false pretence has not been committed, 
25 Corpus Juris, p. 599. This same rule applies where the ground for 
avoiding a Gontrsot is one of freud, The fact that the owner of 
property which is the subject of « contract uakes represent«=tions 
as to the quality of the property, which prove to be untrue, will not 
furnish grounds for avoiding liability under the contract, where the 
other party does not rely ch such representations, but enters into 
the contract upon his own investigation and examination. Fauntleroy 
etal, ve Hileox et al., 80 Il]. 477; Yalker v. Gorrington et al., 

74 Til. 446; Grooker v. Benkey, 164 Ill. 282. in the instant case 
the fact of the investigetion made by the defendants was not submitted 


* 

e802 aa tout#ne® eoire Lanett theoe sdf ai oF Doxretex saw Hd odd | 

yorne® toe bib ebdeovt ‘fasned¥eb edt sxed Boos a eae Of dont ai ‘otto 

ode 1h sau sittitel ots watvbe ett tayion GH dedi aeywet Sat OF 

sort etton Yreesinory bac aleoriee aolce into tdisaes bas ovat et 
“wgtitat todd eonededue nf ek dotife jaoiet vodull Sedayewe eit 

g dere ae 3 — ah, onodg pled bivow eelee wetow * sharp ‘ ⸗ i 

ane Heastyory o of Bregot at aetdemcotat edt awob edad blwow txeto 

swdh \ookny gatifes ,fobom ins tady edd tao odd to Siem off? | — 

~ftadvat neds bivow tishavteb edt seodeted bleu ont fii 

cehone TE bmn Yaeger ables ott Lise ban eenaeteton — oat age 

tushavtes odd te Yoditd cottmrotnt ed? tech Ste ovongas ,bol 
coLlnts a0 wouiev bis ynoeitoeroa eth or ws ous oe * —E——— 

xenwe ent — sihhin biter 2 od tewm erode ¥ett ef wad yg sai — 

Yuu wouter ote bas  .sonddotq sulet beyslie edt mo yeeqorg dof Ye 

euetaqet; eff div txaq of tonne ode yatewbal “te eauas ve 7 



















* ak ode w 
ad evetiod fon ood to dues edd Yo aybeinond eri id “ete 
guiyler .yerecery od? dt te etteq hae ‘HE witey treewat ) ,SonetorG 
giidtstde te wundtte od? ,doteegtteeval wad te etliveas vat tectone 
.butitinmes weed tom ext soueteny salet te ease Yd Yrreqerg t6 Yyanom 
tet buvexs 8¢¢ Sréde eviings Slex emeg wid? .eGe 4 ottvt agrod * 
Ye Xoned odd gudt toe? off a te eto at Hiertaod « giibleve 
—— sbiew tosrtied a to toubdee bdt wl doide ytteqeuq 
tom Lite yerctiir ed o& ever dokw | — end si OF a 
edt oredy ytootiaos edt ohn ytiittedl gatblors to ery deta! 
atnt eredue ted ,enoltntnsserqer dove * — ton aod Sx0q roa⸗ 
yousitagsT .o HNealtmaxe bra noltoght ann 1 
ol te notamdera Y xadiat reve tt 08 | 
Sn tnetant of? wi’ .eet fT pet padnot) j@bd 
bettinive fom anv efanbaoreh od? ya shar woltesttnerat ant to | 




















5 

te the attorney when hie advice was sought. The advice of counsel 
to be sufficient as a defense must have been obtained in good faith 
from & Competent and reliable attorney upon a full and accurate: 
statement of fact. whether the advise of counsel is a complete 
defense upon the facts submitted in an action for malicious prosecu- 
tion, is always a question for the jury. fadner v. Filer, 37 ili. 
App. 506; Seidler v. Beirnaert, 25 Ill. App. 422; Gruei v. Mengler, 
74 Ill. App. 36; Lyone v. Kanter, 285 Ill. 236, 

The verdict of the jury in the case before us is supported 
by the evidence that the automobile was a new Viking oar and was 
fuliy described when the application for sale of the contreet and 
note was ande by Kailer-Youngquist Hoter Sales. The defendants had 
complete knowledge of the details of the transaction, and before 
purchasing the paper, made an investigation, and being fully satis- 
fied with the transeetion, purchased the cenditional ssles contract 
and the note signed by Fields. fhe facet that advice #ae obtained 
from an attorney upon a statement that was net complete is not a 
sufficient defense based upon advice of counsel, and the jury evi- 
dently did not consider it sufficient when it returned its verdict. 

- The defendant contends that where the facts are stated to 
the judicial officer and such officer erroneously concludes that 
& Grime has been committed and directs the arrest of the slleged 
Sulprit, the informant is not liable in damages to the person srrested 
in a suit for malicious prosecution, and relies on the case of Glenn 
ve Lawrence, 280 Ill. 581. 

The court in that case announced two rules. One is thet 
where an ordinary Complaint that a criminal offense has been committed 
merely charges its commission substantially in the language ef the 
statute creating the offense, and whether the facts known to the 
defendant constitute probable cause is subject to preof in s suit for 
malicious prosecution; and the other rule announced by the Supreme 


Leeaues te serves ad? «tyurae maw — ‘etd site yearodsn oat « e 
y 4 boon al bonisids need ovad Pee sansten 4 6 Saekoktive 94° ot 


a “Sis ae 


TCHS brs Liss a aoqss yeutotse eidekion ‘bas tet oqm09 8 now? 
nteiqnes P at Loanvos to setvbs edt radgodi task to ‘teomsdate 


—— 


— —DR —* soltes me ak bedg.imdue etoat adt_noqu semeteb 
fit V8 Peres * — sinus ,dd_z0% a0tteoup # ayes at okt 


— — 


—S—— -v oud i868 .qgh Lit @8 .@unaumtes ———— a, oma 





hic, — ae 

Wee itt aes —— ——— i8e gh — 

— ay fs 

betzoaque 9 ay | stoked sano edt at cet vila te soLbeer od? | — 


“ger bud 109 yudi¥ wae 2 soy aiidoustus ott ted goaohive odd y 
bis sosrtaoe ond te ‘elas aa sokteatiegsaedt ated bed ixoge | yids 
| bad ‘etitabaetob adit ceola® netox fetuogase FaroLtad we oben a4 
etoted bas olsosanst? ont to aiteten ade te eg) eiwond staiquas 
—— vist ates bere tol sysduored na aban ,r000q eae — 
tonntape voles Lada —2 ode donadorsig ‘yaedsocanstt | ont Me. be batt 
beniesdo gee sotvbs tadd font ad? sobine® ya homie avon ‘edt jae 
& toa ef exeiguoo ton aan vada faonadate = now Yormotts a0 sett 
~ive yu, edt bas 
stohoroy att bentwi9 és fiat snore skies a xebienoo Yom t oth a — 
of hogata one ton: ode ersde teds ehuotage taabaoted ont : se 
ted? robulones Usuoenorre ro0itte ove bee reottto Seto — 
begelis edt to teenie edt atooskh bar bes — 00d aad — 
betaorns moet ee edt of eoysmeb at oLdnal ton * tuseyotat ode atingioro 


oat i 














wth ie — ae 









ages te enao ont no — Baca wtodduoeaote ‘ewoketien ot ties oe | 


SCF Oo she at ry fin ESCs 


ofa fd oes 
tat af ond -oslvt ovt bosnveans seco tat at toe od? * 
Pink: FR olny * nytt fs 

host hamoe need ead anor to Inahutte 7 bas —— 








— ed? yd heomsonwe eLux code ont ban yroltessere euototsan 


6 

Sourt is thet when the faote are stated in detail in the complaint 
and submitted to the justice for decision, they constitute probable 
Gnuse and the same rule applies where the facts are fully and 
truthfully stated to reputable counsel. 

The defendant Froehde's statement made te the court is 
substantially the same as was submitted by him te his attorney for 
advice, The fact, however, that the defendant inrestigsated the 
proposed saie of the conditional sales and note was not communicated 
to his attorney. The charge made in the complaint by Freehde is in 
the language of the statute charging that the plaintiff unlawfully 
and fraudulently and with the intent to defraud by means of faise 
pretense obtained the defendant corporetion's money amounting to 
$1,040. 

The facts upon which this charge ia made were known to the 
defendants, and are subject to proof, and the question te be decided 
as to the probable cause is one for the jury, and the rule of the 
Supreme Court first stated in this opinion is controlling and applies 
in this case. 

The next question to be considered is did the court err in 
modifying the defendant's instruction No. 18. The court modified 
this instruction which was offered end is to the effect thet Albert 
W. Yroehde before he made the affidavit and preeured e warrant for 
the arrest of the plaintiff consulted in good feith an attorney at 
law, ete., by inserting the words, “a reputable and competent, * 
before the words, "Attorney at lew." This modifieation ia consistent 
with the words used in the defendants’ instruction to the effect 
that the defendant consulted with “counsel lesrned in the law." 

The plaintiff did not question the reputation or competency of the 
attorney consulted, and we are not inclined to view this instruction 
so modified as reversible error, | 


i. 


tutetwon edd at Lhegeh gi betedd ove etocd edt medw $okt ak dauod 
bifederd etytivanoo yYads ,xolaleeb xor solvent ait of — * 
“he — ote tbat oft e10dw aeligqun slut mee odd ban BATE 
eleaauoo oldstuxes ef botate —* wet 

ei ttnos oft oF Oban 2eommdete ot ebdeeet dnabastad edt 

tol yeatotds eid of wld ye Betvindwe ecw as Onan Odd y, aad 
pdt Hoteg2éenwt daabaeteh eds ged yxovewed ytowt oT .8e 
Hereotammes ton sew Moa den wolae Landhttbnes edt Yo oles | 














ith at ebioort yi tatelqmod edt at obem agtedo od? Jyantores ahd of 


yletwelas Ytatniela ode todd gutgreds Studete odd to ——— ode 
wetet te annem yi huovted of dnodel edt dtde Due yLéaetut is 
et gattnvoms yeoron atawitrroqned tantdeteb et? beatedte sen 








ost 


ad? of awend exaw obam ei agtade aldt dotdy megs tent ode 
hebtoot ad of aektease add bas stoong ‘et teetdue ex faa catarhastes 
ad? te elue odd fan perot edt wet odo wl seuss aidadeng odd o¢ te 
— bas — Py J ane aa betoas font? ‘F900 axety us 
: : ‘steno lat ad 
di x29 tried od? Bid vf bevebledes ef of aodteoup xe abot aaa ee 
heltibom #aves eff 481 .o nolfouttent e'tasbaetes: sie garrison 
fuedis godt Peotte ol? of ef bas borstto ber dotdw noltowth 
xo? fasten s bervooty has thvebiYte et eins ad onoted wBdeort | 
te Yearetts as déiet Boog al bevivenoe Taitaista edt to Vaotrs ext 
* gueteqmes bas eldstuqer a” (heey Oty gabtreent yw ‘cote wok 
tastatans® of rottenltitom akdT "“.wad te Yomrorra’ sabrow | ott erotad 
‘footie off of sodtomrrtent ‘etanbueteb ad? at bee ebtow oft atin 
“wal off mi berreel Loemeo” déiv hetivendo tasbaeteb silt Yad 





















Okt to yodetequmo to noldetuyer off netteou9 tom wes — ** one , 





aoktourtnd eiite woe ot beak sont tow ore ow Bain * 


ae 
es. 


A A, ay ee ee ee a ee FE ee IO ees 


hi 
ot Peep —— sunken a 





* * 
PT ee ee, ee ee Se 


The verdict of the jury is not against the manifest weight 
ef the evidence, and the amount fixed as damages is not grossly 
excessive, but is fully justified by the proof. The judgment entered 
upon the verdict is not based upon error, and the defendants had 
a fair and impertial triel. 

The Judgment is therefore affirmed. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, 


WILSON, F.J, AND HALL, J. COHNCUR, 


















— oa ti a — ve oa 
ait “stoord edt ee bestttout Yili at fad , * * 
——— i eae, 

of te tt — b 





— 


2 meme ea — — ——————— 
MATERA Rew Aes Fee TANG. wets Shi ee Histo — ‘mais me ais, gto ‘Re % ; 


Hi #2 Bodo lamoe eet We — HOOROD 6h ota 


qitewe lig TLISeSRIs HRT, Poot jot gon the ‘Mewtnbe ote te 





ae 6, J Matic i eer aeans — Rae alan 


a 4 Ly Py ee * — WP Le ee 7 whys is * we 3 aie v me 2 J 

Ue Bee ERB Pyles — RAR: ore 

al 6 — its 
86 id F MAA Be Sek 


nay wh eto met See eae cee ad ahs af ‘eiaaess “aid ee 


ae ib ud pities tena 
— 


* * ———— fe Sob aa * ed ihe See 
SOR iuicn Tein BeEl_eoee 








a Sar eysent tale ss ui er mee gi ay geamiowal w a 3 ie ‘ 4 

pie’ —XR ee ead dad has hurae wee he) Rae! ‘emnee aa * “hte ‘ae | ny aaa 
Mate ele a pottoatlahl” —— sted — baw whic " 
‘wet ac? ee hee — rinse ‘ ae 

mis te yinets cam oT — 2 oat va at ele ale wks | tee —— 
e with dey wh dace thaw eh ata wt wee wt 


feast ———— 


AR AROS RM ge 











sve 3 AA hes tk 


Se ee ee ee ee 


a ee ae ee ee 


ALICE ELIZABETH LANGE, by Andrew G. jange nage a 
her next friend, APPEAL PROM 
—9 
UPERLIOR COURT 
Ve 


COOK COUNTY. 


Appellee. Le 0 1.A. 636 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 


HARRY SMITH, 


MR. JUSTICE HEBEL OKLIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

This is an action on the case filed by the plaintiff as 
next friend of Alice Hlicabeth Longe, « minor, agninst the defendant. 
The ease wae tried before a jury, and a verdict of not guilty was 
returned, upon which a judgment was entered by the court, and 
from which the plaintiff appeals, 

The osse is largely one of fact upon the queation as to 
which one of the parties had the right of way at street intersections. 

The secident eceurred on the 10th day of Februsry, 1931, 
at the intersection of Touhy and Ashland Avenuea, Chicago. The 
traffic at this intereection is controlled by « stop-and-ge signal 
light. Phaintiff's evidence is that she had the right of way by the 
flash of the green signal light, and that she dreve an automobile 
roadster into the intersection, when the auto truck operated by the 
defendant's agent, coming from the south, entered the intersection 
at the time the red signal light was against him, end the collision 
eceurred, This is denied by the evidence offered by the defendant, 
which is to the effeot that the plaintiff continued to drive the 
roadster agninst the red signal light - the notice to step and not 
Continue - and did not heed the light, whieh resulted in the 
collision with the defendant's truek having the right of way. 

The plaintiff's minor was 17 years of age at the time of 
the accident, and according to her testimony she was the owner of 


\ ‘wont ane » rn er er ¥ Pagerp tides rei ten 
—— ie anoalleu oe resent cay = 
by Bet HMM ur —— — (stderr 
TES BOG Ko seine health Sete ae 


tebe: ve yak boli? aolxiqd — Ae gh ahha hee “aay 

.TRUOO INT GO ROTHEIO BHP CRAZVIURO Jean SOT Tet a 

an Tritolsly edt yd bellt eeao edt mo aoltos as ef elaT | 
eteahaeteb edt tactoga ,tonks a ,egasd dtedeshiG, ootiA te buotet dmeet 
enw qtiles tom te telbrey « bax ert « sveted betes saw ase * 
Ann dh ot yo Devedas wow taewghyt « deidy aogu ,bemwtor 





selvoage Ttitetele adt doldw mowt 


0 e @ ale. 


oo ax no teacup edt gequ doet to eae yYlogeal af eese edt 


| sRacitoseretnt toorta te yaw Bo tigia aut bad aadtraq edt ‘to ano atte 


akhGL ,yranidet Re yed dvOl ad? ac herxwoee tieblooe of? 


edt sogrols® yeeumevs badtded ban ive? to nottocexednt od? ba 


Lomgie og~bacnqote » yd ballottaes sh mobtoomtotnt eldt te obttert 
edt yt yaw to tagix edt bad ade ted? af eonehave etttatmhedd tigi 
elidomotae me avoth ode dade bay tight Lnmgie meerg ont to dealt 
elt yl betereqe dour? otws dé mode moktoeutetal edt otad — 
nottosersset odd betetae ,dteor edt mort goiwoo .tnegn at nabas' 
sofeilion att bas qeid temious eaw tiyti Leagta box ott amas os * 
ptnabaeted odd yt betette eonekive edt w beiaeh et eidf ,Sercyve0o 
edt avixh of beuntdnog Ttitatalg edt ted? tostte edt o¢ “ 
fon bus gota of sottod edt ~ digit Langtn box edt temtays teteboor 
add ai hetineer detdw \ttgil edt heed tom BEb baa ~ ouatonoo 

















sYew to tigit ot gaived douet ettaabasteb edt dtiw notation 4 


¢o emt? od¢ oo oye to otaey VL avy tontm s'ttttatale od? 


to rene od? enw ode ynomttee? xed o¢ yatbrooos han yonebioos edt — 





3 

the automobile opernted by her at the time, The automobile license, 
however, was paid for and registered in the nome of the parent of 
this young lady. The doetor in attendance was not onlled as a 
witness, and there is no evidence of any expense incurred or peid 
for medical aid. 

The record is not cleer as to what injuries were sustained, 
but apparentiy they were without serious consequence for neo atteapt 
wes made to call the physician attending the young lady to prove 
the nature of the injuries susteined by her. 

The evidence offered by the plaintiff was not altogether 
free from contradiction, in that a witness offered by the plaintiff 
was not certein as to the location of the signal light posts st the 
intersection, nor the location of the automobiles after the accident. 

The evidence offered by the defendant seems to be more 
consistent and certain, and no doubt the jury considered it sore 
probable, as evidenced by ite verdict, 

The plaintiff complains thet the ense is clese as to the 
facts, and the jury should have been properly instructed; that the 
court erred in the giving of six instructions, which unduly empha- 
sized the defense of contributory negligence. The giving of instruc-~ 
tions should always be as few in number ss is consistent with the 
isaues involved, in order not to confuse the jury. The practice of 
giving © large number of instructions for either the plaintiff or the 
defendant has been criticized time after time, but in this sase the 
facts and circumstances in evidence are such that the jury eas not 
confused or misled by the instructions. 

The case was fairly tried, and no complaint is mde that 
the court erred in its ruling except as to the giving of certain 





connneL! elidomotun aft séuhd edt ta ted YI Retexoqe alidemonus 
te gxenang oft to eure edt ak beradetses, bas s0% hien 4 enw cw gtavonod | 

* a5 belies ton sow ennehaetis at totoob edt syd geo, abs 
bieq to beviwant ns init ts te esaebive om at sued Me eneent, 
_beaintess one cotta, tate Mt. 88 — ie ad bsooex oat 
taeot ss on rot wexeupoanoe — woai ore mits 








| evoꝛg ot yous auex ade watbaet ta antoraytg ads iiag Ling 8 ‘oben asx 


—J—— 


. 2 w Realet ane wetmabas sat 20 pany ig outen edt 


“edemetis ton en — ede ¥, berotte opgahive bed one, 







edt te ; aie pei — poy to aadteoe. oat os ae 5 mis * J— J aw 
. aah tod⸗ add teeta seLidonatie odt te mokteved eds oR | sxotak 





erom ed oF amose sunbed ott xe Dexetio a mphiye oe * ne 
J at se 2 west, au⸗ Auodb On butst er Fane 

nos a apabrey, att w: beenablys ee, «eidedosq 
ca of an ‘es0lo at oreo nas font, — — — * — 
—ñ —— Koide — * ae vig oat a bees: | 
~ourstent to en tv ta ont ssomeys Lge seit J— tne, > ™ .b. 






















fon BOW cut oud —* deve dal — —— ake SOEs: 
von veo dtourne ead ode * poleta 
— —* 2 tatntenos me bas ghodre, Yartat anew ‘agn9, oct 


a had Lanes a 
aletree to gatvin ode ot ae sqoons aativa e@f md horse, txv0o odt a 








' — 

Rac) 

A ee 

‘ ‘ * * *4 wee BL Sida 3; pia it eng 
Peete SRR a Re SAN I a gees EL | ath i?) aN 
* 5 ' ‘ 5, A i. « re . 


abt iy 


3 

instructions offered by the defendant. As we have already stated, 
there is no error in the giving of the six inatructions which would 
warrant a reversal of the case, 

The jury having returned a verdict finding the defendant 
not guilty, and the ploeintiff's action based upon the negligence 
of the defendant having failed, the defendent’s instruction upon 
the question of the ownership of or damege to the automobile was 
not harmful, where the jury did not consider the question of damages 
when it found the defendant not guilty of negligence. 

The defendant*a mere accident instruction given to the jury 
is complained of by the plaintiff fer the renson that the evidence 
in the ease did not justify such instrustion. The fact is that 
both the plaintiff's and the defendant's evidence is te the effect 
that eech of the respective parties had the green signal light to 
proceed and did drive inte the interseetion, and if the jury believed 
that te be a fact, then the coliision between the two cars was a 
mere accident for which the parties are not responsible, and 
therefore the instruction wos proper under the circumstences, 

This court is satisfied that the record is not subject 
to error such as would warrant a reversal, and the judgment is 
aseordingly affirmed. 

JULGMENT AYP IREED. 


WILSOK, P.J. AWD HALL, 4. CONCUR, 


| 8 
shotate ybaotls oval ow oA stanbaston ont qo bexette snottourtent 
bivew doldw saoltouttent xe ‘eds ‘te gaiviy edt ak torts on at axed 


«e200 ade te Keosoven s eaarrav 

TB east 

tasbaetah ona pada? ‘toLbrey a bentutox gatver wat edt | 
— 

eoregs igen od noc beset aoltos a'Ytitatete ond * Lg tou 


ch Ratan 


_ Sage aebtewrtent et tagbaeteb od shot ie? gatvas sashasted ed? to 
ore eligonotun ong ot eaemeb x0 te auasꝛ oemo ott to mokteeup ade 


ee Beis 


— to nottaeup ade rebLaoo ton bib vest ad¢ — —— ton 


veoney2 igea te ve Ltng ton techasted edt bauot 38 a1 Pd 

vtut att of merig notsourtant auob tose al stamebastot oft —39 

gonedtrs odt tnt noonox edt rot Muttakade edt w jo Ben tetomoe at 

tad st teak oft | sso stourtant | ou iiteut, die bab —4 
yyr⸗ ont of et soniehive e'tushastsh et baw miaaata ott at 

a ‘ot digits ieagie avery edd ed votteng arigoeqeot "eat te Laan: 

beveiled ytrt ody 14 Baie noi toonrotat ode ota evizb beh bas “* 

S$ Rew atao owt one aaset ad otal i£oo ont weds atoat * od of tad 

ban oidtenoqses fon ote arses eae donde % tot tnobtoos oven 

aa sRoonetanuotto ont robe regene new | aot sourteat 0: 5* 

_ twetdve fom at prover one tade bettetten ad su09 8 ag ————— 


(eh tought add ae laez eren a tnaten Divow ox foun * 
















——— 








* 


REN Ce —— 
oURMALYTA TRAMOOUG | 


oH we bude dese pangs 


aie ; , i i Paattu fi 
sn aet — ys ee Ma ce 


_sVORDD * ie WHA bt 


— Gare a ao highs 





i OM PK ole ey ores 25 i 
Se | CRE ay ae: es Bs ot * Hi 
t eee. 


ri . ¢ We oh * 3 a * 2 i 4 PON * — fs Ss 
PA ey te. & GA RIM ee ae Ne] Aa Ss ie 
—— 
ad J ’ THURS 


OT ae ae 4 
BFL ke Dye, en 


36099 
ANDY ¥. RUNYON, 





APPEAL FRO’ 


Appellee i ⸗ j 
, SUPERIOR CouRr == / 


Ve é 
JOHNSON ELECTRIC GO., a Corporation, = COOK GOURTY. 
Orn 1 J— Te Le 
-, 6 QO i i | 
Appellant. — —VAM. OD 3 6 


Opinion filed May 34, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVARED TRE OPINION OF THE COURT, 

The defendant eppeals from a judgment in the sum ef $1,430, 
entered in favor of the plaintiff in an action in assumpsit submitted 
to the court without a jury. 

The facts are, substantially, thet the plaintiff's trade 
is that of a journeyman electrician, ani that he hes been engaged 
in that business for fifteen years or gore; that he became an employee 
of the defendant in the fall of 1926, st which time the wage scaie 
for journeymen electricians was (1.50 an hour, and continued in that 
employment until the iatter part of July, 1927. At that time he 
worked for the defendant as an estimator ond solicitor at a ssiary 
of 275,00 per week, which salary wae later raised to $80.00 per 
week, and in the spring of 1929, was reised to $95.00 « week for 
euch work. 

On Jenuary 4, 1950, the plaintiff and the defendant discussed 
a reduction in plaintiff's esalary due to the existing financial 
depression. 

The plaintiff's evidenese is to the effect that he was to 
receive $60.00 a week to be paid by the defendant; that this was a 
temporary arrangement and thet the difference between *60,00 and 
285.00 was to be paid by the defendant later. 

The defendant's evidence, however, is to the effect that 
the reduction in salary was socepted by the plsintiff, and that this 
was evidenced by the acceptance of the (60.00 a weekes)fo 4; From 
the evidence it sppears that the wages were paid irregularly from 


“oeyelque ne ensved ad tat — 1 ATSRY mOMPLLE toh omnes deta 





‘ ate 
— 

Me ce gusty Piece oo et axes 
tne Ot be. Seeven 6 teerited 
e¥YPAUOO aooo _stoitestog7e9 «. 0000 OES TORS WISHACE 


“988 sy ys Ba pe oes — —— 


ee ee | Mae 
beer ae xeu belt? aotntg 





eh gactwed, Wt unto 4. sbi ml 
- TAUDO aT . —— aay aaRay RG, —— MOLT FM oyu, ad 

4080 418 te mare ad at tnomyhest, & BOTT eLaeqga taadaatob ed. — sy ve 
bert inde shogun at molioe na a Pidtatalg edt Ye sors at herodas 
ge OTE 4 Pensit dhe tauoo adt of 
“ phons — ———— ode tat sikeuamatadie A WFOOX OAR «csc * 
bogegte need ead asi ade hale od ⸗ Ro past ob 








einoe agew od? emis doldy go BCL te iiet add ad. tashaorob aft Yo 
tedt ak bounitaoe has ,twod me 08st? sew angtoiateats samyaaxupt, sok, 
ad omit tadt ta 802 etivl, to treq tegeat ade Legos. teem eda 
ysis 2 ts — hos rotenttas ae an, duahaeteb, od, ⁊ 
iad 00.084 od bontar total ‘tor yralon, d0bs9, ydpor, 295. O6y89- Res 











wot — J 00-888 or beater ene. * Ye ynéten sd? as, fis toon | 


Koay Thad gz tom 





‘aa us inabdaor ed 4 bas > tibenhate ott — ao a 
| Lotonsntt yuttaixe od? of sub yrales atttitadele at moltouber s 


stolssongeb 
ot cow ed Jadt footte edd oF ef sonobive etitivateig ede. — 
snow aid? tadd jtnebmeteb edt WS bkey od of doow « 90.088 ovkeoor 
fas 00.03% aoswted somerettih edt ¢edt dae tnemegnatte Yeate 
exotel guebnsteb edt yt bhaq od of anw “00.289 

todd soorte ont oF ef qxovewod ,eonebive a'éashaeted ot Nig 
eidd tent bas 4ntele ot YS dotqooos wow YRatae au nettoubex edt 
mort —* * 00.083 ode to 





——— el ae i 





2 
this time on, both as to time and smount, and on February 7, 1931, 
the plaintiff left the employment of the defendant. 

The defendant sdmitted in his affidavit of merits that there 
was a balance of $165. due the plaintiff, and thet the plaintiff 
was paid at the rate of 960.00 per week. By stipulation of the 
parties, judgment was entered for this amount and satisfied in open 
court. A trial was had as to the balance claimed to be due the 
plaintiff from the defendant, and after s hearing, judgment was 
entered by the court for the amount appesled from. 

The defendant contends that in an action to recover wages 
Claimed to be due under an oral agreezent, the burden of proving 
the terms of the contract under which the claim is made, is upon 
the plaintiff. This is the general rule, but in the instant ozse 
the evidence establishes the fact that the plaintiff did receive 
$35.00 a week from the defendant until the reduction to $60.00 was 
paid, and the conflict in the evidence is whether the plaintiff 
was to reosive the $60.00 in full peyaent of his wages each week, 
in lieu of the 485.00, previously received, or whether the difference 
between the 960.00 per week and the §85,00 per week was to be paid 
later by the defendant, 

The trial court wes called upon to determine that issue, 
and as we view it, the finding of the court is sustained by the 
evidence; also its finding that the plaintiff did not accept the 
860.00 weekly salary in full of his services, 

The court had the witnesses befere it, and no doubt noted 
their seversl appearances, demeanor, and the fairness of their 
testimony, which is denied this court. The appearance of a witness 
and his frenkness in testifying is a factor of importance in deter- 
mining the credibility of the witness, and is an advantage in deter- 
mining where the truth lies,. the weight ef the evidence is for the 
trial court, and only when the question is rsised whether the 





<JQi .Y Yxaweds% no Dae ,tmvome bas eatt of we diod no omkt ede 

i stusbasteb sdf to tcomypodqnd odd Pte ektakela ont 

suet godt etires to tivebstte aid at hettimde tanhesYeh ent 
Yiltutolq odt tadt bas .Weitabaly edt Bub BOL} Yo eomslad # eee 

ed? to Mest ahurg ste ye As ac Taq 00.088 to ster eit ta bieq sow 

seqe al beitetial one git, etdt r02 heretas eew coemghat eeskiueg 
adé eub of of bentalo sensed oft od os bed saw latte 4 —R 

eh ‘eae  tmomgbut qpittesd a totte bas stantnoteb ‘ode wort vee 
"nowt baiserqe tums ode wt eruod * * areas 








aogew Tevoesr of aolton na ai gas? 


pakvers to asbusd edt ataodoergs add til sl Se saat 
oust eb eben al ntele ad? dedde robes ‘Soetteeo ‘edt to eomst ott 


“geeo dantent edt mi dud ‘gales Lereney ett wt eid? ———— alg adi 
s¢ionet bib Yivntelq add gil Pout odd wodatidades Soanbive eit 





"pew 00.089 of moltouber eft Litdy tasinwteb aft mote deen & ‘dh 


‘Stitalelg oad sedtede #2 sonshive eat mi ‘vol Ttaes ‘gas ‘has’ al 
yitew dowd aogaw ald Yo ta8eqeq Lint al 00.08% edt ovisose 
eonersttib edd tailteds 16 ,hevieoor * Ke 
baz 9d of sow teow teq 00.888 hte bid abies boctes eats 











,taabasteb edt yt —7 


gout tadd ontmroteb of aege Boling daw dudoo Lalze ont 


oft yd benkateve et $xwoe ont to gaibatt ode atl wotv oy an baw 


tise e eh 





ode — * ton bib —— edt tad¢ podbot? ett oate ‘Ve vn dng 


secolvres eid te Liut mi yretan liver 0.008 


Swe 


beton #duod on bas ,#t axoted sonsend ty * ‘bad oti ar 





tedé to cesmzict off bas Asa⸗ aut — ———— kexeves thes : 
seantiw » to Soustasqae ‘ed? .duwon alae ‘bedned’ al Aotdn —** ‘ 


Sa eee 


seb ai sonedroums te fotos? e al gaigiisaes ai — — * —* 





~r9#a8 ae eqetinvhs ae et baa waeontie: edd te owisians : 
oid xo? of ootisbtve ond Yo tity ten outlets L asus od oe 
‘edt redtedw beater ef motdeoup ‘eat sorte “ae "aaa 


* a at 
aétw0 te o 





< of bow 
i .0688) edt to —* at 





3 

manifest reight of the evidence is against the conclusion of the 
trial court, is this court called upon to censider the evidence, 
ILlinois-Indiena Fair Agsn. V. Phillips, 241 111. app. 454. This 
court has examined the record, from which it sppeare that the * 
genoe amply susteing the Court's centliusions upon the iseues. 

We next consider the objection of the defendant to the 
evidence of the plaintiff as to the "nion wage seale for journey- 
men electricians. ‘hig evidence is not material upon the question 
of what salary was to be pald to the plaintiff, nor under what terms. 
the familiar rule is that «2 triel court in passing upon the subsitted 
evidence will disregard improper or incompetent evidence in deter- 
mining the issues. Victor v. Harner, 246 111. Appe 35. The rule, 
however, does not apply to a jury triel, and it may be that evidence 
of the neture objected to is immaterial to the issues involved and 
may warrant a new trial, but this is dependent upon the evidence 
even in e jury trial, for if the evidence clearly establishes that 
the conclusion of the jury is 2 proper one and no other conelusion 
oould be reached, this court will not reverse the judgment entered 
on such verdéct. 

There is evidence offered by the plaintiff that a propesition 
was made by the defendant to turn over some second mortgage notes in 
payment of plaintiff's claim, te which the defendant objected on the 
ground that the offer was made in order to effeet a compromise and 
was not admissible in evidence. 

We have examined the abstract of record but do not find 
thet the defendant objected to the admissibility of this evidence, 
or moved to have it stricken from the record. Therefore this evidence 
being in the record without objection it tends to show that this offer 
of payment was made to take care of the belance due the plaintiff, 


& 
ed¢ to metdwtonon off tamiege ai cotebive oft To tdytor teatsaam 
etonabive ade tebledoe of aoa helles sted 9 ‘el. Dna dohtt 
“eat ohh stgd EEE £08 (pabtigdy WW’ geal | 

~ive add tect ereecde $f deta mort ,Droset of? bottenxe and @xves 
eoueet edt meqy esotecioted e'oxaa aft anh eters Viqne eoaek 

ott of taahwsteb etd te aoideotts eff gebledos tran oF . “i ait 

| ~yartust sot eLate ohew mbtat ote 62 an Pratalady ad to somebive 
—— poditeewe eft moqw Inttetas tor 2: oonebive eit! | vematetrteste: mom 
- seaxes tate croban sbi Say bbctatay oli We Dike Wt OF ane bied Bete be. 
bettindue ety moqy gittease ot Mud Lokt® w ted? G2 Lee weblinet od 
ototeb al sochhive teegeymoon! co twyerqmt Breyeteth Law equrebiee 
goiire of? ° a8 sigh \ELE GPE peeked WW aoge2Y” .eeveed cid gate toe 
sonebive tedé od ‘ea th bow . fete? yout « of Sides tom Boek: tevewsd: 
bae heviownl esuae! od? of Lelxatemat 2 oF Betootde oexuitam wait Rp 
‘eoasbive off nocx dnatmeyeh wt atch tee yisird wen © Suerte itm 

| tedd eedelidates yixeelo sonahive axf Tk wot \fetee vent w mh Weve 
ss igtautedoo dedie da bas ako Yeqarg's ek Yrul odF Yo wotewtonde end 
Boxotas —— ‘edd serevex fom — ‘#vaoo aids —2* og ALwen 
— # godt YVitntela adt yi bexstte enero kh neil oe tated 





ai deten syagttom Racten onoe Tove nid ot tanbaoteb ete Yd sham aae 


ad¢ no bateatdo tunbutted edt doidw od yatete etYesendaty to andartao 
(Rais ohtnotgmad’s Goethe oF Aodes mt Ghee aime! aenns ont: a 
haa tee Ob tite Drooet —X —— 

,,,,,, ody gilt 
“pomebive aid? srotersdT .Drosot ott moxt wewbitte o2 biel of BeveM to 
retto eid? tadt wode of wbavt #1 ackeostae duodsin Drover site ink gated 3 
——— ‘be ‘out ebmaths itt te wl othe! ot bia tine dixomrye 0 
neve wdt ty apeew od 908i etind od? wendy ota 4 


* thieves Pei Bee i hte) ei ie cee ob 
Row MOS Bak MES a ed ‘eae wi ® “hes fue isis 









E 


4 


and it was not erroneously admitted by the trial covrt at the time 
it wos offered. 


Yor the reasons atated, the judgment is affirmed. 


JUDGHERT AYYIRMED, 


WILSON, Pode AD HALL, de GOsCUR. 












salt site “el elle Ltn aAd NG i —R 
aebios ole eaters ot hone patio wheels a) ie 
whe wa for ween Bh dake woe ‘ibe 7 


aes inc mene hursesiataw | a hea — snk nee, eh si " poem — ; 
ey ae — a maw — one: we ame — jm * — 
— D——— abet ean hha” aati i ‘he! —— nt ‘ 
wattviany wae were Le kane peg es i ——— 
ered fede tehay — 
bevitediag otf nogl qutente Wt Prob ie — nl a 
| eto aia oahaLsw tna pemlentin Hi orale 
gi hie ate” lt rit * — —* 
onsite att ol” wet ed Newt fone 





















eels one ee Mind si en 
eat podetinuten —— 
— ————— Har⸗ on hate i —* Dy are 









' Hl i, ee ot ht —J 
pie ————— ree ty Ba 








ie : * 3 — 
36114 * 
Appellee, © , 
SUPERIOR COURT 
Ve 
JULIUS KEWIT2, COOK COUNTY. 


Appeliant. 2 7 0 of ofhe 6 3 6* 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HEBEL OELIVERED THE GPiINION OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal from a judgwent in the sum of $3,500 
entered upon a verdict of a jury, in an action of trespass on the 
case to recover damages for injuries sustained by the pisintiff by 
reagon of the slieged wrongful act of the defendant in opersting 
his motor truck so as to collide with an automobile in which the 
pleintiff was a passenger at the intersection of Wabash Avenue and 
Garfield Boulevard, Chicago. 

The only point made by the defendant upon this record is 
thet the court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction No. i, first, 
because it does not express the correct rule of law as to the res- 
pective rights and duties of drivers of automobiles sppresching street 
intersections; and second, the instruction is not werrented by any 
allegetion in plaintiff's declaration. The questioned instruction 
of the plaintiff is as follows: 

tint teem toe — Bag va ara satke wonkahe sommdeiieed 
she 2 
intersection, then in such event it wes the duty of the 
defendant to give the right of way scrosg that intersection 

to the plaintiff's automobile." 

The accident happened at a street intersection, and the 
pertinent query for the jury was, which driver wae guilty of negligence 
in the operstion of the motor car that resulted in the collision of 
these oars. 


In sonsidering the questioned instruction it is the duty of 


tir, Pott * * 


alae yes * — stumoatiy Ton, 


‘ COOLLOGAE cd's gh Fe 





de 


THUGD SOLINFWS 
a? 


aot | 

0890 Ae lk 0 * 8 — D Lowa ae 

: SECL gdS yoM beLit aolmigd | 

THUGS AT TO —X BHT e u SUAS WOLTOUL HM 

08,8? te aus adt mt teomghwt « moxk feoqge we eh eit | * 

edt se apageett to soltee ac ak rutz 4 to sobhsev e megs rede 

w thituielg ed? yd benteteus settatas sot segameh teveoon of sexe 

| gititexseqe m2 taxtesteb ert te ¢oe Lutgnoxwe beyetie ad? te nenewr 

eile Mode mk ekidonotus me Atte ebtiton of an 08 sours totem whi 
| bas aurova deadet to soltoeatetal edt te wegeseanq # wew Bdtetal 

gh basset ant moqu tuatneteh edt qd ohim pute tins emt 9 

\fertt f .oW aoltoustend e'ttisately yatvlg al boxes twee edt tede 

| won edd of se eal to oLux toornoe edt pavngxe tom seek tf onuened 

| foette yaidocerqqs eelidomotus te asevith to writen bas etiigit evitoeg 

yin YS hevanrusw tom al solteutsani adt sanoote bas — 

solteuttent benotteegp ed? .aoiveteloab ae ttivaleiq af molds 

 pewedieh ox — a 0 











\ 


eS 





Se ee ee eee Oe ee et 





has ovelisd way ti stadt Le eee CTR 

me yn elviday tetom e 5 —— — aot bat} 

| woh Hiektred bas curv tae edd 

bias bedosotage elidametua e'ttitgalalg edit ig hy a yr: euse oct 

edt to ytub ad? sew ti ¢uove deus at med? yaoizoveretak — 

} soltoaeretad tade aeorts Yew te tigiz oift *1 J———— 

* sligonotua tuteiq od pall si 
edt ban ,woltooerstas feerte a te beaogand gaablong — 





sonogiigon Yo yeitim sux sevixh dodde . Yu out rok rap baeaueroa 
te — edt af hotluwet tad¢ m9 toon ode — 





ils Baap Byles Clear ore Sie ai — 
es Wn eae 


2 

this court to consider not alone the inatruction that is objected to, 
but also all the instructions given by the court, Among the instrue- 
tions of the defendant which were marked given, is one by which the 
jury was sdvised and instructed thet contributory negligence as 
applied in the instant case, means failure on the part of the plisain- 
tiff to exercise ordinary care and caution for his own safety, 

which proximately contributed in any degree to bring about the 
injuries for which he sues, 

Then agein the jury was teld that if they believed from the 
evidence that umier the circumstances defendant's automobile prior 
and at the time of the accident wae operated with ordinary cnre end 
that the defendant did all he could to avoid the accident, he was 
not responsible for the collision, and the effeet ef the instruction 
is that the plaintiff cannot resover in the instant case. 

From an @xamination of the defendant's inatructions thet 
impressed upon the jury the rules of iaw which apply in erder to 
properly charge the defendant with a negligent act, the questioned 
plaintiff's instruction may be subject to criticiem in the choice 
of such words as "at the same time* when the vehicles approached 
the interseotion, if the motor cars appreached the intersection st 
the same time, there were other circumstances for the jury to consider 
upon the question of which of the drivers had the right of way, but 
we sre of the opinion that the defendant's instructions, in the main, 
sorrected the objection made by the defendant to the inetruetion in 
question. 

ie point is made that the feets in this ease did not rerrent 
the verdict of the jury, or the Court's rulings; nor does the 
defendant make any point as to the amount of the judgment. it would 
seem therefore thet the criticism of plaintiff's instruction dees 


newspaper 

aot hbetostde al sada —— ed? —* ton webiaaeo of tuveo pee 

~eurtent of? gxomt davon ad? yw naveg anoiteytsent odt Lie eels tud 

ott doidw qd ane at .iovly deduex oxew dolde tanhaetsd odd Ro anoke 

as Sonogiiges yrofudizgaoe ted? boteurtend bin hesivks gow Yeu, 

mntela edt te traq edt mo etypliet .ansom bese tantent ode ad deliqga — 

qiteien awo aid sot aoltaco bie oxen yramlige org of tthe 

edd toda gaia ot soxgeb. yar mt —— pail abe * 

ade * bovesies pwr v7 sult Biot ssa ah out * ee 

roltg eLidemouze a'tanigeteh aroqersmumtte oie sebay tat Aoamhaye 

bas oneo yraniine dtiv bedeTeq9 kew dnebloen edt to emit odd 48, 9, 

ane @¢ ,toobicos edt? bigvs ot binge oa iia bib taehweted end ted 

mokteurtant edt Yo teette edd ine ywoteliiee ad? 10% eldianoge n. fom 

6 soy 0 Santend AG. 7s AMON A 

| toa — douttans aténsdmetsd adt te agttacinexs ga mont 

_ ot vebte gh yiqge doide wed Yo neiva, out Vut eds mogs 

baroitgesp eft ,tos tavgilgea 2 Adie sasbeetab ede sytado yt 

soled oft at metoisinxe oF soeidue od yom so Ltountenk ot ‘Sidatss 

_ bedonoxqae aeloldey edt moda “ankt enn att ta" ax aber down X 

te mtteensetal od? baderorcan oreo totem ede 14 , sfigdinwe ne das. 4 

xod tanoo of Wu ede not weonetamuorte xadteo een oxoa⸗ * onse edd 
dud (yew te ddgie oft Bad etovish add Yo dodiw Yo mod aaa oat 

inn ot nd yenegtoctiea! a'taeoaste odd tad? potalyo smd 
ai dottovttent olf of tasbaotob odd ys oben aolton 





























' LenS — Pabpao saobiong atchad asu 
Amerie fon bth oe00 atdt wi stant edt soda obam af tatog of 
Sit nok xoa zeaaacus ↄcxvoo one, am eutal edt to * 3 


ae Seb at 


a 





3 
not justify a reversal of the judgment, in view of the fact that the 
defendant's instruction cured the ebjection. 

The second reason advanced by the defendant is thet the 
allegations in the séversai counts of plaintif 's declaration did not 
warrant the giving of the instruction in question. fhe first count 
alleges in general terms that the defendant negligently drove his 
motor truok into the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding 
es a passenger. The fifth oount alleges that the defendant negligent- 
ly failed to stop his motor truck, or to change ite speed or alter 
its course, and the sixth count, thet the defendant negligently 
failed to check its speed and divert its course. This court 
in the ease of Lejdeck v. City of “bienge, 248 Ill. App. 545, ateted 
that where generel negligence is alleged in a declaration - 

*{t would be proper to give such an instruction where the 
declaration charges negligence generally, as seversl ef the 
counts in the declaration in the instant ease do. That 

was the negligent dri of the car, because it was in 
violation of the method aoribed by the statute. Further- 
more it wes not necessary to plead the statute, but only 
facets which brought the violstion counted upon within the 
statute. Shicago & Ae c- Dillon, 12% ill. 570," 

Agcording to the rule announced by this court, the giving 
of this instruction upon the state of the pleadings was not erroneous. 


For the reasons indicated, the judgment is affirmed, 


JUOGHENT AFFIRMED, 


WILSON, P.d. AWD HALL, J. GONCUR, 





4— 





————— adi —— soit wet} 















panbix ene — odt olde mi eLidenotun a? a 5*5 —* 
Aa mitaoa — edt toad eepelin demon oe ‘dT sregunsoneg & a0 
— 7 Deoge oti egesdte ot te —— — ead Gode 9 ‘gH : : a 
“vitney age bicabaot ob ott tad? ,2muo0 dante * ————— * 

| trw00 east ——— ————— — downs ott te « ftet 


botese ** att aes | zd 
— — ——— a kh bepelis wt 


Pa tans F 8 =i 3 Ree pees Rape 


ae wrote aoitourtend ma fiove * 4 oF —— 








sbomegtte ad tuonmbut odd — — a a 
oe eek Bea oy re i a tet ia pene , ae atten ths eae 


3 ‘ q 
i in weet ‘ite Rib, tM Bi oe Hele comer By. 













* 4 4 Sir —F 
fin Pa pa NY ut — * 
VP iy | i F 


sensi 

Pret ie: Pe OM — EER nae oa Caf Wah am 
ac Weil he nanan 
SAE eT aS TE se ig eR * — ——— ny me 

t F Be is fara 

ned ¢4 Sonat srt kh wom h | eater tah, 





) RA 1s ieee RTE Wa ak Se ee i fa thal — — ———— 


wit 


36167 7 | aa 
f ~ 
BURNSIDE TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, APPEAL /FR 7 at * 


a Corporati ⸗ 
Appellant, YON y, nh 
WUNICIPAL GoURT / 
Ve ’ 
ar Ai TT fra 
SOFIA 0G1, 2 60 I.A. 636 


OF CHICAGO. 
Appellee, 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
MR. JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE OFINION OF THE COURT. 
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an order entered 
by the trial court setting aside and vacating a judgment of $1,883.20 
entered by confession in faver of the Burnside Trust 4 Savings Sank, 
® corporstion, against Sefis Bogi, upon a promissery note dated June 
8, 1925, for #1500, due three years after date, bearing interest at 
6% per annum, and signed by the defendant and Gabor Mogi, her husband. 
In this note is contained » »arrant of attorney to confess 
judgment upon the following conditions; 
*and toe secure the payment of sald amount we hereby euthorise 
irrevocably, any attorney of eny court ef record, without 
process, to appesr for us in such court, in term time or 
vacation, at time hereafter, and confess 2 judgment in 
favor of the holder of this Note, for such amount as may eppeer 
to be unpaid thereon, together with costs snd reesonable 
Dollars attorney's fees, «nd to waive and release ail errers 
which may intervene in any such proceedings snd consent to 
immediate execution upon such judgment, hereby retifying and 
confirming all that our said Attorney msy do by virtue hereof." 
On April 13, 1932, the defendant filed her motion to vacate 
and set aside said judgment, and to diemias the suit ef the plaintiff 
on the ground that the court eas without jurisdiction te enter the 
judgment, for the reason that the warrant of attorney te confess, 
provided for in said promissory note, woe entered upon) s joint warrant, 
and at the time the judgment by confession was entered the defendant's 
husbend, the joint maker of the note, was dead, ond that he died on 
March 28, 1932, 
_ The question upon this state of the recerd is whether the 
trial court erred in vacating the judgment by confeesion and dismissing 


Plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff contends thet the defendsnt as joint 





_ 
si 
0 


ow 





— * x 
re on OMT LAAT Ruad J vas reat wareKius 
ee tate —F fe RE —— — 
a aw —* — + rif — gtaslieada RR es hae 
\ THUGS LAGLOLNt : 7 
"9Gd.-A.1.05S ‘ 
d 8 9 , Abon ATIOS 
sDOADIHS bd 
a emp ksogghy: 66s (eer 
* seed eS yeh holit —— | 
+000 Ba? W WOLKIIO BAT Cah a¥ Laue desu aoireut ce N 
ae As POG 





| beroase rebte ao moxt Tittatese sd¢ Wi inegge aa eh etd 
08.288,2% ts tasmahar, & gnitsony baw obkas winks ton —— Lal⸗ * * 
Ant mgakve® & tenn? eb Larus oa ke ‘xove? a noteastaoe * . 


e pends ae h 4 


angst betab avon eountmeny 2 aoqu tye altos teskays wiodtonoaras « 
he teeretes guktesd yateb redtta arest verde aud 400828 tot Rte 8 


£ Be 5* 


— ——— sigoH rodeo bis tashasteb ed? é Beagle tus gumas xoq e 
aeotaeo of vervorta te dastisy 9 benketaoo ei oten ‘aide ol ear 


os Bowe ¢e8 


* seeeto nade: gelwel tee oat coo erewahot 


ex ktotten einen: ow ——— Riese te . 
twedtin ,bteost To tenes jugs te Be 
ee ¢ weed Ai, at a 


ab cusaanet e ——— hae: gitar te ds 
Lesa aed Sto8 gist ty 
Tisasiaes te bas arene Sale —— 

ekowrs ii e er bas oview wt base 

ake taeanes hae —— dou wes ae | 

“stostad audaty an Yau ante Ab blew #0 ‘fede ts mend 

otsonv of aoltom xed heii? taabasteb od? Oh@L zi Lingh nO 

ttésninlg edt to Stee ont wetsn tb oF has steemyoet hice ebian toe fan 

‘edt tatae o8 aultethelunt tuottinw exe divoo edd todt dauorg edt mo 

— gneolace of Yaetotte to tasttew. edt Ped? moeaet edt tod ae 


etasttew takot sonequ boxetae gaw ,ston yYrounionte bliss ai tot bobivors 





a’taebastsh eft beretne aw ackenetace yd tremghut edt oalt ont te bas 
ae hokh of tndt ha ,hesb saw yeton edt to tedew tadot odd abasdaud a 
— 0S douek 


edt todtedw ef Brower of? to ofate sid¢ neque solteaup ont 


gctinetmerh bas nolpestaoe ys tmomghut edt yakteoey at barre drv00 Lntxd — 


into, ae taehasteb edt gade ehastnoe Wieataig edt tise |*t%. 


| 








2 

maker was jointly and severally liable, and that the court hed juris- 
dietion to enter the judguent against the defendant, she being the 
surviving maker. 

The defendant did not appear upon this appeal, end there- 
fore we aré without the benefit of the theory of the defendant's 
defense. 

The plaintiff stresses the point that the note in question 
was both joint and several, and has eslled this court's attention to 
See. 3, Chap 76 of Sahill’s lil. Rev. Oteat., which is as follows: 


"All joint obligetions and covenants shall be taken and 
held to be joint and several obligations and covenants." 


and contends that by this provision the law makers sbrogated the 
Coemon rule requiring thet judgments be confessed against all or none 
on = joint undertaking. The warrant of attorney in the promissory note 
is joint authority to confess judgment, and the courts of this state 
upon this question are in accord and hold that s joint warrant of 
attorney dots not authorize a confession, of a judgment against the 
surviving maker of a note, even though the note is in its terms joint 
and several. lMsyer v. Zick, 192 lil. 561; Farm [xchange Usnk 
Sollars, 265 111. App. 98; Keen v. Bump, 266 Ill. 11. It is to be \ * 
noted thet in the opinions of the court the note is referred to as 
a joint and seversi note, but this fact does not affeot the question 
that where a warrant of attorney is joint it will net authorize « ae 
severnl judguent. 
it is further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant's 
motion is not confined solely te the question of want of jurisdiction, 
but is coupled with a motion to dismiss the suit, and by such motion 
the defendant is in court for ali purposes. fhe motion is in part 


as follows: 





3 
watts bed truce edt get? bar .eideli yLisvoves bas yitatet sew redon 
edt gated ado ,tnahasteb eft tankane ‘gnemmbut ede setae of modtose 
: stodem galvivewe 
— —— eis} aoqu marcas toa bih tnabaeted od 
— et tanbast ob ait to yrosdt adr re sitened ac? duad?in ‘eee aw exet 
eed .85 Yo Ltt noinig * ————— — 
aoktenrp AX ofon Wit Torte dithy bite exeeoute Vitdateda edt 
ov ng iinet ts al txuae eins belles aged bas steven tae entot tied eew 
tawedle? sa et dnide asa aver ofA — to oe ‘cesta * pe 


aaa Se Lak indi 
pas atlet ed Liade eénanewes hae anote daiot L5a* 


‘,eénasevet hae ameitapli ite Leveres ban tadog ed 08 | pt sds 

ada betagomws atedan wed od4 noleiverg Aae WG torlt mbwednee baw 
enon to Lis teaiase besestace ed xtaamgbheh tedt Redeinoes ent, eh 
stan vsonetaot; edt ni younotte te aneezay ed? «guidedreba ako 2 2% 
—«gtaite etdt Yo weruoo ode bas stromahut eontaoe 9 xtssadtan tatog at 
| to tnettew tate, « ?adt Sied Ras bigots «i, ra sottany ate aoa 
tt tomtage (romahet, 2:20 — —ú—⸗ 
a: ameod att ak eb sted a ost eee aa ** dom gadvivewe 
| —* og ot at $Y £0 ffl 088 sam — Pe oh 

, a of hecrater oi ston add tugo edd to maataigo edt : 

no ldnsse eat dourte ton avob gost side tet <ton Lexoves | : ‘pntet J 
—* 8 exizedtua tow ike ry ‘sntot ab J—— vo farce a oxo teas 

















Aye Seem sae. Babee f 

4 Larovoa 

iy tye wee ra : 

pltaahastes odd tad ‘tentang edd at beluagiae xodtwt ef ‘a 


Yous J if St ae 
sie tsosbe stat te tase te moiseous oad 0 eles benttaoo fon al at aokton 
eR 4 ae 


‘mohtem dove ys bee . tive ade auinste o aoiton * dtte vesewoo ei 
treq ad ei noston adit sseaormm Lis tot faves at si ansbasted 01 


— suse 4 






"Your petitioner further represents that the warrant of 
attorney, giving the plaintiff power to confess judgaent was 
R — warrant, and that the Jourt hee no jurisdiction to 
enter the seid judgment, end thet the judgment against 

our petitioner is void, in that the warrant being joint 

s régarded an entirety and as such is indivisible and that 
the Courts have repeatedly beld thet when one maker dies and 
the warrant is joint, judgment should not ve confessed 
ageinst the survivor. 

Wherefore, your petitioner prays that the said judgment 
entered herein on, to wit: The 3ist day of March, 1932, be 
vacated and set aside and held for naught and that the case 
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, 

The appearance of the defendent is limited by her motion to 

question the juriadiction of the court to enter the judgment upon 

the ground that the warrant of the attorney to confess is joint and 
thet upon the death of one of the mekers judgment should not be 
confessed against the survivor, fhe motion dees not indicate a 
general appearance by the defendant, but rather that the aprearance is 
limited to the question of the jurisdiction of the court. Upon the 
present estate of the reeord the defendant is not in eourt, except for 
& sp@cial purpose, and we are of the opinion that the trial court 

did not err in ordering the suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction 
of the defendant. in order to bring the defendant into court it will 
be necessary that she be served with summons in en action instituted 
by the plaintiff upon the promissory note in question. 

The order heretofore entered by the trial court is affirmed. 


ORDER AFFIRMED, 


WILSON, PoJ. AND HALL, J, CONCUR, 





a 


to tanrtew ef wey etrearges tedturt vronottisee — a 


ur athe Thetter tx on iad riog Tidgsandg oe * *7 


teaiegs tnemgtwi edt tadt bas — ye ode oine 
tale; gaisd tnertow ed? tet al —* at cenotd itog gery ante 


‘ ge ge aldieiv ai dows « itne ga ———— 
Me vedan —— 


— od ton tan boas tmomphut «Plot at Batt a ga 


taomghay, bias * tedd ayete xemoitited uae —“ 
7 abel sss ot te yak. ‘aot S edt stiw of ao maxed beretny 


nak’ hat hate het uss 303, bind Ag. —— 
04 moktom tod yd bodtatt ad daxdasted ad¢ Yo btwexedyen Bat | 
focu taongbut ed? xoras oF siuoo sit Yo ——— 
bas thiol af agataoe ef Yactotsa ond to dine 














et tan Also tnghe, venient 2o nc M0 tse tan, ta 
@ etaotbal gon enob aattom ott .zoviviue oft teakegs by ) 





ah sananaeqgs e138 tak? tedtat aud .inabasheb edt yi eomnte: 


ek true tates ose. 4 ——— rotated aobro edt 
A CRT GA MAGKO Fis be Sees F es 


—* BERG, — — 


— eae hay, Loevewen 





‘hace aadaim stadia rau— oe ee ee ee ee aoddos 
vit pekenie oF aohtem « Mee crete don 


fo wh #ewed et ws dpe aoke ot 4 
thwddded on i 


: —— 









Sari aeas ap Cag hag? J 


AA Hs et MOadTW 





36184 r 
Je W. HOLT y wf o¥/ERROR TO 4 / 
Plaintiff in Error, / at My. ⸗ * 
— MUMIOLPAL COURT / 
Ve é f 
LOUIS PRANGL, JR, GY CHIGAGO, J 
IN OVOTA. @2Ro 
Defendant in Error. éU L.A. O 3 6 


Opinion filed May 34, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HEBEL GELIVERED THE OPINION OF TRE Coat, 

This case is in this court upon a writ of error te the 
Wunicipal Gourt of Chicago. The record filed herein is a coumon 
law record, from which it appesrs that an sotion wae filed in the 
Wunicipal Court of Chieage by the plaintiff ageinst the defendant. 

4 trial was had before the court without a jury, and the court found 
the igsues againat the defendant and ageessed the plaintiff's damages 
in the sum of $750. liefendant's motion for a new trial and in 
arrest of judgment was overruled, and judguent eas entered on the 
Court's finding for the plaintiff and against the defendent in the 
sum herein above mentioned. From this judiguent the defendant prayed 
an appeal, which was not perfected, 

This writ of error is prosecuted vy the plaintiff because 
of errors that appear on the “ace of the record, and he questions the 
jurisdiction of the court below to enter on July 14, 1932, an 
order vacating the judguent for the plaintiff for £750, sand te grant 
the defendant = new triel. The record is as follows: 

On June 8, 19232, a motion of the defendant was entered to 
vacate the judgment of May 9, 1933, and continued to June 17, 1932, 
fo further continuance of the motion appesrs of record, or action taken 
by the court on the defendant's action. On June 24, 1932, the court 
Continued defendant's motion to vacate to July 14, 1932, and on 
that date the court entered an order vacating the judgment dated 
May 9, 1932, and granting a new trial to the defendant. 

The record before this court was filed on the 1léth day of 


September, 1932, together with the plaintiff's abstract and brief, 





at ‘ke sata 
has 
os pes * p —* 
x - Bee ane ye beLit ——— p 
z 
fevoo aHT 40 wOzardd dee Ceeayiaw sabe i ee 
| “ed? of torte to dicw é aon fuwoo eid ad ab ‘ease eid? Coe 
iieiond 2° 6P ‘nadted BALIX bees “edt cogxaddo % ‘teu0 ‘beale view” 


sca BOS 
‘ed? wi Reif eaw aoitor na teddy axtoigs iia ‘odie wit “bzooer wal 


| ae a pe 
| stusbwoteb add tenlage ttiealela odd ee ‘pgaside to ‘fused ‘hoo te Leu etm 

| havet fuwed vdd bas yyrot a ties ouside ott exoted bad oa Lain 
. 

















— a'rtisainiq edt Secasoee beta fashant es ‘edt t — pewend ie 
> ae hae? med, 
8 baa Lettt wed ¢ 26% dottom 6 'taabucted case te wwe edt a 


pet 2 Mg ‘te eT ty 


ed? ay betstae anew tacybut ban sbedurrave eas amengbut, Yo 


] ehh ig + 
; od? ai ¢aabuwtet odd tealega ban utadatg ‘ont ‘wo? yabbad? —— “df 
| ae ae 
i — ‘tuabasto ads te omabut eidt ‘mort sboaek saan ovedn ) asoned — 
9 
ico i oa shes oataeg tox nam dessin forage £8 
J 





Seveved Thithiela edd x bosuoesoxa ab torre te thaw « —— 
on comnetianie od Sit drones orld to oa? “ola it raonas tore  pxoree * 
pie ROL (br pink mo cen of walad tawoo edt te modtesbabint’ 
imerg of hag YOUTe tot Titdutelg ed? wot duomybyt ott gattaoay sebte 
ieweilet es sf brooez edt .tiait? wan # omen at 
of hoxetas eaw gaahasteh ad? to notion 8 “saber * eau — 
efSGL Ti sav oF beumitaon ban Gſ ,@ yall to saemg bul edt — 
aausa fiaktesn to ,breer to easeqga fotten ed? to eonsundenod uodtuyt oa 
ss tte odd SSCL 28 ane 10 .Roltom eftnehasted adé me tauoo odt ya 
Bo ban ,880L .f ylut of oteoay ef aoitom O'tpahantoh besaltaos 
hetab sneuytu, of? yadsaonv rebso an boratas — uo 
—— alt of Aatst won a gattanty bas 8801 ak 
Yo Yb ASL od? wo bellt aew exuoo atdé sxoted braver edt | 


* ie ff ere eee ae ee al — — ORS alae 









The plaintiff contends that the trial court lost juris- 
diction to vacate the judgment of May 9, 1932, when it entered the 
order on July i4, 1933 to vacate said judgment. The motion by the 
defendant to vacate the judgment was made and entered on June 8, 1932, 
and was in apt time, being on the thirtieth day after the judgment 
was entered in the Municipal Court. Under the Municipal Court 
procedure the court has jurisdiction to entertain such « motion, and 
by continusnce reserve further jurisdiction when the aotion of the 
defendant was continued to June 17, 1932. At thet time, however, no 
further continuance was granted or action taken by the court on the 
defendant's motion. Wothing apspears in the reeord until the defend- 
ant’'s motion of June 8, 1932, was continued on June 24, 1932, to 
July 14, 1932, and on that date the court vacated the judgment on 
defendant's motion. hen the motion of the defendant was not consider- 
ed or jurisdiction reserved on dune 17, 1932, the court lost juris- 
diction to enter the order of June 34, 1932, or te continue «~ 
the motion to July 14, 1932. 

The defendant sought to remedy this omission by his moticn 
for lesve to file an additional reeord, and from this sdditional 
record it apcears that on Octeber 19, 1933, a dreft order wae entered 
by the trial court nunc pro tung aa of June 17, 1933, continuing the 
defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of Hay 9, 1932, until 
June 24, 1932. This nune pro tune order of October 19, 1932, was 
entered after this court had jurisdiction. The plaintiff in error 
had enused o scire to be served om the defendant, and the 
plaintiff's record was filed, together with his abstract of this 
record, and his brief and argument, on September 13, 1932, and that 
wee before the pune pro tune order of October 19, 19232, was entered, 
er notice of such motion was given to the plaintiff by the defendant. 


The plaintiff was entitled when he brought suit in this 


. , VhiMe 
~aitwt teol faves inicd od gade abaernos Mitatelg eff” 
att hevotae ¢1 modw .S80E ,@ YK lo sruayhirt’ dds Stade OF HorsetD 
oft yd aottom ed? .tonughet Stee eteony oF SBCL as tint no aaah 
888 ,8 onws no bozetms kas Gham enw tnomphut ort etesowed Ink f 
tasagbut ot roths Yon déeetaid? ode no gated «omit tea ak new bos 
—EE— nd de ppMed Lay ioiaw eft at dexretwe eaw 
bas cokion 2 tows aterretae ot np ttobbadyer nad Rd ed? otwbscorg 
edd to noites ade note fo keene newt, rodtuat avEoEeT —* Be 
on ytevewd .on2t fede fa SOL NE emul ot bewnd reb 
edt ao trvoe edt yd mode! wottos wo Bedunty ave ee | 
anaibtveb’ itt? Cbkey Weites ie ak beretee geno diahew a ciel 
| ed eer $0 bart ne bowitiee cir ut wat Yo aitbon’ S¥bae 
te anata ont Bakeoity Hrvo9 ody Odab nike HO | e eter OT vi 
— tot gow tambasted ode to acivon ae ait at on "LE? 2 ae ob 
-etwt teol #uwoo edt 260 ,VE eawt mo hovtosor aoldeibettit to 
| sunitaes at to wend — ont 20 xt —— —XR 
acl ——ãs 
foltom eid w ao heehee aise ybomer of | tigers: tanbuetob edt Poe a 



























done tstbbe wide mort bax yhrower Kanoltthbe as fir of oveot not 
‘besos gow tebito ‘Ptanh #° beer et aon se tad exse:ge #f baboos | 
odd grimmttinoo ,880L I onvl to’ aa_ofmt oxy ggem tod Teast ony ye 4 
Lita 680L .@ ya Yo tmoagbet ott utseny of motton’ 6'tas 
gow .886L .@L tedeto to eebto Baud gag ghon otdT © eeer abe J 4 
torte ai ttitntate ea? ,wolsedbeburt’ bad: ‘$rwo9e wind teil bevetae ’ 
- ei¢bae qémobaoteb eddie boveoe dao Beton gxtios Bobeio Bat 
eid? 16 sonttade elt Atte vodteget [hoist daw brows ol Ptitaiale | 
“gods has gS8OL (OL tedmotqos He (tnemigth Bae toled eid Bad baodt 
cboredue Kaw 8801.1 eodefeo Yo “tobtd otal xd saue'Sdd oroted ee 
vinabirvteh oat yd Testn2ete dt oF avg oe motion dium Ys eBited td 


orbit ah, wae a Ca ee ok tre i Toe i (ay ‘ 
ait? aa tive tdquotd od modw beititus eaw titeateda ont . — 





PN SLO SUC AEE — 


SES ———— 


3 

court to have the order vacating plaintiff's judgment set aside. 
The jurisdiction nequired by this court cannot be ousted by subse~ 
quent proceedings in the trial court, and the jurisdiction of the 
Appellate Court cannot be vacated by 2 puno pro tune order entered 
by the trial court. Barnard v. Dettenmaier, 89 Ill. App. 241. 


This court in an opinion on a somewhat similar queation 


in the case of Franz v. Canton foiling MAll Corp., Gen. Noe 35937, 
not »°) reported, said: 


*The defendant before this court insists that the trial 
court erred in entering the judgment and has called to our 
attention the case of the Illinois Land & Loan Co. Vv» 
MeCormick, ¢t ale Gl Lil. 222. In that case after the record 
was filed in the Supreme Court and errors assigned, the 
deoree was avsended in the court below at a subsequent term 
to the one at which the decree wes entered, The Supreme 
Gourt held that such practice was irregular and thet the 
Supreme Court must and did decide the case upon the record 
originally filed... The instant case is properly in $he 
Appellate Court, and this court has jurisdiction. ‘his 
jurisdiction cannot be ousted by the subsequent order 
auending the judgment entered by the trial court. Sernard 
v. Dettenmaicr, 89 fll. App. 341." 


The motion of the defendant for leave to supply an 
additional record was reserved to the hearing, and from the conclu- 
sions indicated in this opinion the motion will be denied and the 
order of July 14, 1932, vacating the judgaent entered on May 9, 
19232,is set aside and held for naught, and the judgment to stend 
with directions to the Municipal Court of Shicage to enter orders 


consistent with the views herein expressed. 


ORDER REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED 
WITH DIRECTIONS. 


WILSON, P.J. AND HALL, J. CONGUR, 


NCOES OH OD 5 


oe ot Meat rp 





| ly 
.sdioe ton teengtyl aiiitaiele yattaoay sehue eft evad of tuo , 
~oadve vl Detewd e¢ Jonna tioon eldt od deviupoa mney 28 
ed? Yo solvotbubyat ode bee .tamoo. Sabet add ab ihe ) 
heretns rebte lt eens. a: wi: ataneguad daman iia taileqga 
“@ShS sok J ELE 68 .yehammet ted -¥ Drosen eto Lakes edt pm 
nottveup Yalimie fadwemee @ aa tetaige an af trueo aldt . 









fae 


L S8ats te am, * “ 









trovex ec? reste asao tad? Ps 
ro edt ,bemtgices azote hee. ete. 
** — * a te woled dived edt 
of off horetae gen goroed oe 





ait! as Useqore at anno tnetent i pix Se * aire 
sebto feu nigh Pri pie es ood sr : ts ae 


| bteerrel sone od aaa — — 





~wioaoo edt moxt fas .gaiteed edt of bevrones eew & 
edt bas betaed od ike agtton ods noiatge aldé at bad a 
a, yas ir boresns sromg out oi gaiteoay —— dint’ ‘$0 wilibe | 

_ Beate ot ——— ade dae stdgune ‘got bind ban ‘shins te at, 862 
erehro xs¢a0 or —R to rue Laqubtnon ett of andidoerth i 

. RNP! tecsemne aivzed evoke Oi dt —XX 
az 












GWA OSGRGVAR | 
GHOLTOGAIG HTIW. 


; : mame te 






a Asa) ‘4 
he badd mY Rae ae ie obi Ya beret — ag 
1a —* — 
J nme TP ae ery 
Ae) a ——— 
B pag * * Pade 9 
7— # — ai — APT MRE Sh at 
i 7 ie Pe if i i 
Nth, anes PLE Ry 
MY 
P . * 
hk eta 





f ‘ae 
36195 f id f | 
. “a z vil 
GRAGIN STATE BAK, a Corpor ion, or 
Defendant in Errgr, | . A f 
7 ~~“ MUNICIPAL COURT f 
Ve uf 
ANNA AAFLEL, OF CHICAGO, 
J FY fF) T 7 
Plaintiff in Error. 2 9 Ae A. 63 ra 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE CcURT. 

The plaintiff filed a suit in assumpsit in the Municipal 
Court of Chicago on three promissory notes signed by the defendant, 
and upon its motion « judgment by confession was entered upon a 
warrant to confess in the sum of 71,509.83. The statement of claim 
alleges that the plaintiff's claim is for money due on three notes, 
aggregating the sum of 5,450, whieh were duly executed by the 
defendant and delivered to the plaintiff, the legal holder, and that 
the amount due on said notes after sllowing certain credits is 
$1,370.83, exolusive of attorney's fees. 

On June 10, 1951, the defendant filed her petition te 
vacate the judguent by confession, which eae denied by the court, and 
on July 2, 1931, after leave of court, the defendant filed her second 
amended petition te vacate the judgment, which the court refused to 
consider sufficient, and the defendant brings this cause to this 
court upon « writ of error. 

Ho evidence was heard by the court other than the facts set 
up in the amended petition of the defendant, which ere that the judg- 
ment by confession was entered on Hay 28, 1931; thet the defendant 
had no knowledge of the entry of the judgsent until the 6th day of 
June, 1931; that the judguent was obtained on three notes aggregating 
$5,450, and attached to the notes were certain securities end a 
mortgage securing the payment of a note for *5,090, executed by the 
defendant; that a sale of the collateral attached to the note, 
together with the note and the mortgage was had; that from the money 






4 wt, : * J 
* . pan \ \ mS — 
— 4 Sf A088 09 a g¥HAd BTATS aoaao 
= A aTOree as tashawhe. 
X PROS JaTrorin : 
— ee oy i 
CRAVED FO —— TTA auaa 


— —J 088 Aico > suet thitagelt 


cel 48 yek belit aoiniqd. — irts ee 
: oATRD. HT FO WOLMI' ie SUT GEKSVI sae atta WOLTAVE A.) ae 
Seuksiant edt ai tieqmyens al tise « bellt TRitalsia eff 


atashasteh ait yd hangie aeten yroseimety send? ao) opsdi do to aaod | 


ry eas 


noc bexatan eay aosnestioe Ww tavapbut » medton ett moqu bas 
sisio Yo taesotete si? .EB.ROReL) Yo mu edt mt eꝛuer of on⸗rrn 
,eotod aezd? ao evb ysnem to? al miate ertiatadnle od tat negolt. 
add Xe Aedunens yuh oxew soide. 8b ‘Yo mvs ot gritegerags 
ted? bus sreblod iegei edt thitndalg oat of hereviien ae tasbaoted 
Bh giibere aisteeo. gabwoits ss¢te. soton hive ao mb avons edt 





— a! yeatotes * ovteuioxe 280 LD 


ot woltited tod baler taabaeten odd ‘ites 108 ona 20 
bse ,ttueo eke ‘¢d pelneb enw Aokde snotonetaco e tuomgbert ast os 
baoose ted bellt Incbasteb edd Awwos to ovael regte Lee, a vats * 

of beaver Hues od? doidy ,taonpout ‘dt eteccr of ‘nodtiteq bebaoms puoms 
akes of eauae ald? spattd mabaoret od bas “tasieitws —— 


g 4 “ih 






Te 


"yxerxs to thew em aoqu 
449 — BE Pe she Ae: 
toe stont off aad? tedte atuoo odt ys breed ase eomebive oft 


~abut 44) Fad? Sua Ande .danhasteh one te aoltite bshaems oft at qu 
tnabndteh ost tadt {L804 88 yok mo herata® sew nolnestaoo ve tae 


Lo Yb aes od? Litay toomgbut edt to yates edt Yo sybelwonx on 





gotiayetags eaton eoud? ae benietde saw srooybut edt todd piteL soa j 
& has aektiqvess atatess arew ao con odt ed badensts bas ah ] 
eft? yd hetuoexe .000,8% rot ator 2 to snemyeq edt ‘pubes agagtrom a 


toa oft of bedontts Istetsiios edt to eine s tet jtnnbasted 


yasom eft mot? todd ;hod aew egegdtom ed¢ hae ater od? atin reiteyot : 





2 

received from the sale of defendant's collateral the plaintiff reduced 
the sum due on said notes to $1,370.83; that the purperted sale of 

the defendant's collateral was fictitious end merely » shem sale and 
that in fact no sale was had; that the plaintiff purchesed at ite own 
purported sale the $5,000 note seoured by 2 mortgage, for $3,000, and 
thet the sele was 80 grossly inadequate 2s to amount te a fraud. 

It appears that the defendant hed dealings with the plain- 
tiff for the purchase of stock, and thet the notes and collateral 
attached were exequted to make good certain margins needed, and finally 
by reason of the inability of the defendant to pay the money or 
deliver more stock to make good the margins claimed by the plaintiff 
to be necessary to protect the colletersl the plaintiff made the 
pretended gale of the collateral. 

It is stated that the so-called purchases and sales of 
stock made by the plaintiff for the defendant were sham purchases and 
sales and were fictitious, and that the defendant believes that no 
stocks or securities were in fact bought or sold. 

it further appears that in the transsetions it wae understood 
and agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant thet no steck or 
securities were to be actually received or delivered; that it was the 
purpose of the plaintiff to seétle ali gains or losses by the payment 
or receipt of the differences between the aarket price at the time of 
purchase and at the time of settlement with the defendant; that the 
amount Claimed by the plaintiff represents an unpaid balanee due from 
the defendant of the market differences, and is therefore illegal and 
void and in violation of the Criminal Code of the State of Illinois. 

The plaintiff bank foiled te appear in this court, and 
because of this failure we are without the claintiff's reason why the 
order of the court in this case should be sustained. 


heovbor ttivaiels ode Loxetailos e'énadasteb te else * —* — 
te eles bedroqtea edt tadt (£8.02 £8 Gt aeten bias ao Sub mae ett 
bas oles meade a ylezem Das eveltitolt eew Leretalloo s"aanhaeted, ede 
eo ath tn bonsHoruy Itidalaly ont todé jet sew efae on ‘font at tadt 
 ‘bae 000,87 BERIT, £ ye horypep ston 000,82 odd oise betroqtng 
-buet® = @@ tawons of os staupebent yfeeory 08. aoe 2: oat tate 
mabe ed? dtie epaileed bat saghast od odd teds Sa Me A 
Lavetalion ban seton ont tastt beta ioote te seedorin dt tot i 
YLisat? has shebsoa enigsse atas roe —D eden * besuoexs tl pair 
| tro reao⸗ out you et dnabaoten ode te wWiildens eda * = av 
| Pbtadele eds vw bowl sie eaignas wat boos exam ot deote Posey Pele 0 
| edt eben aos t⸗ i one Innstaitoe oat sostore ot ytaseeon: —* 
es * — 9 Stak 
i asiss hus ecadorwg dolieco-on elt tedt fetete at $1 
| bus aeendong mata onaw sashnoteb one set atatala edt . 2 Me hom, feats 
es om tect savei led tashasten este sont bsp —— e198 hen soles 
| 




















chee, mo Fees soe sone altered SN 
beaterebay new af enektosenent ont na sexs oan saga godtent #% — — 
zo A00ts of tode saabrote eda Sate Thtsatel ode “moma | he | 
edt cam 4 godt pexerZ leh xe beviooss Vilsaton od oF aToW a aos 
tnomyaq odd ys sonnel x0 antag Lis eftsen of Yetixtalg ‘edt 26 snogaua 
to omit ed? ts eels tedtem edt meowted ssoaarsttib odt * sqlseet to 
_ odd tadt ptaebugkeb eae atte taqnelt ioe Xo emt ost, te bane ane 
mort aub eonaled bkaqa: ke nenosonqer pktatesg ¢ ods . * 
bas Legellt oxoteredd as has snenaeneThes, textes ods =, 




















“hats stw00, elds | mk resaqe ot badist ‘mass ig oT — 
and van aoe⸗or erretintoss etd awo at bo biel ow —— se , 
boaketewe od Divas 8 000 aide at ) tebe 


co a 






Gar She Py hie: ‘adhe vai —J —* Ni 





The defendant contends that Seo, 130, Par. 308, Chap. 38, 
of the Criminal Gode, Oshill’s Ili. Nev. Stat. 1931, is a defense to 
thet action, This section provides in part as follows: 

"Whoever contracts to have or give to himself or another 
the option to sell or buy, at a future time, any grain 
or other commodity, stoek, ete. * * * where it is at the 
time of —s such contract intended both parties 
thereto that the option, whenever exercised, or the con- 
tract — therefrom shall be settled, not by the 
receipt or delivery of such property but by the payment 
only of differences in prices thereof, * * * shell be 
fined, ete, * * * and all contracts made in violation 
of this seotion shall be considered gambling contracts 
and shall be void.* 

The question to be solved for the purpose of the defendant's 
motion is, did the facts set up 4 meritorious defense and did the 
defendant act promptiy and with due diligence, The charge is mide 
by the defendant as the basis of her defense that the stock trans- 
actions with the plaintiff were fictitious and thet no stocks were 
bought or sold, and, according to the understanding of the parties, 
settlement was not made by the sale and delivery of stock, but rather 
by adjustment of differences in the market value at the time of pur- 
ehase and at the time of settlement. It is also charged as a part 
of her defense that the sale of the defendant's collateral was 
fietitious, and that in feet no sale wes hed; that the sale of the 
$5,000 mortgage securing the payment of the $3,000 note wes grossly 
inadequate and was = fraud upon the rights of the defendant. fhese 
facts would indicate a defense toe this action, 

This court is of the opinion thst the motion of the 
defendant, supported as it is by the facts contained in the emended 
petition, is sufficient to warrant the submission of her defense to a2 


ury 
een The order of the court denying the defendant's motion is 


reversed and the ¢nuse is remanded with directions that the judgment 
heretofore entered stand as security end that leave be granted the 
defendant to file her affidavit of merits, and for such other or further 


orders as may be consistent with this opinion. 


, ORDER REVERSED AND THE CAUSE 
NILGON, Pode AND HAL, Je = SeyANDRD WITH DIRECTIONS: 


88 eqed? 208 .40% O81 .o08 tod? ehaetaos taabnghed ed? 
 - 6F Sanekeb @ af ,i0CL stare .wort -LiX O° EERied yebod Leakmbeo ote te” 
tevoilot ea greg af webrren¢ oeltees oift ~ —_— tedd 


* bi wom y ot @vig to eval of efoerinee te art ip 
a apes Says 6. oe suet Se ites ot ee > a), 

4*8* th —————— adit 

— te ont. 


; gelereg dtodd hebretak Soar taoe 

Ee “gon ett >  beete orexe revenads toifeo ed? teat ern 
ade yd 9 *3*36* of Liate sos'hoveds tives toax? . .. 
| te + wf i 2 or feb te tyieosr ~~ 
ad = 7 * yee tHE » Ta yee 

| | — ad baw —* * oo po * * 
_, BP Gat sa itiusy hetapianee eG faage Hols 





| u'idebasted vdt to seogryy edt vot Bovios ad of aolteawp off) = '” 
od? Blo bak eunsteb ewoltedivem « gu tes eftest att Bid —* 

abom si ogtedo ei vondeyILED sub att Sete \idqmoy 0H na bart 

-enett foots eit tatt oeasteb tod to etaed eid ec tact 
erow efoots on tadt bae ewolthterY erew Wettsialg ods Adtw enokse, 

,eeidreg edd to galbastexahas eff of griiroose has slow 10 ou⸗⸗ 

tedter dud ,foote ‘to yrevileb bak ofen ot yf obam tom eow dies 
ny Yo emit odd te welav tedtem adf Bt soorerettib to ——e 
freq s es heguedo wee al HI stmemeteaee Yo eate ott Ye Sas Sendo 

gee Letetaiioe a'énehastah ed? ‘to oiae ade Sed? seavtob tod to 

ott te ofte odt tailt ibad omw olen om Host af todd baw \evereteest 
vlanory ear efor OGO GEE odd Yo saseryeq wd* gnttivess oyeutt — 

oned? .tusbasteb edé to efdgtt edt nowy huatt « eaw Bae otausé 

2 ysto dtox s24t of ona wteotbad hivow Wea 

‘git to noktom ed? tedt wokwice off to et ad way Sem 

bebate off af Deuietnas etset ont yo ak 92 wo hetroq@ asia 

» ot semeteb tod to codantndye ae tortor ot te toate ef ,woltitey 


ceiies,. .. ¥ 
* * 4 


al ao ttoss ot anabasteb ad? — 2 —* edt to. ent0 ont 
terse bart odds dade ano tveentb at tw bebanues at seuno ot bre 
| eit hetaerg, od oveek todd bas warevoe ae baste borezse i . 
| go Sie Te SR 
sedtust +o tedée dows tot bas yeditom to tivabitte ned Ltt of e 
| ssotatce aki Atty tuoteseaoo od you ax axebre 


zeuao RA? —* ga araa AACR 
—— , — 






























a De * OO: 


| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
' 
| 
! 
| 
| 
, 


36206 
B. Re BASSIOK, 
Appellant, ; 
ve —— F MUNICIPAL count / 





W. B. BURR and BSURGOLD CORPORATION, 
a Corporation, 
OF CHICAGO. 


Appellees. KY J4 "A L 
2 é 0 bee 637 
Opinion filed May 24, 1933 
WR. JUSTICE HEGEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT, 


This action was instituted in the Municipal Court of Chicage 
onothe 3rd day of September, 1930, by the plaintiff against the 
Gefendant. It is sought to recover #2500, which aum the plaintiff 
paid the defendant corporation upon = contract to purchase stock 
from this corporation upon the ground that the plaintiff was not 
qualified under the provisions of sn act entitled the "Illinois 
Securities Law," Chape 223, Par. 254, Cehilits Iil. Kev. Stat. to 
s¢li the capitsl stock of the defendant company. 

This cause came on for trial and was heard by the court 
and a jury. After he-ring the deposition of ¥. R. ieesick read, 
the court directed the jury to find theissues against the pleintiff, 
and upon this verdict entered judgment, from which judgment the 
Plaintiff appeals to this court, 

The facta sre net in dispute. It is admitted by the plesd- 
ings that the defendant corporstion was organized under the laws of 
the State of Illinois; that ell of its stock was issued to ¥. 8. Surr, 
b. Goldsmith and 4% H. Eokert; that one of defendant's officers, W. 

B. Burr, solicited the plaintiff in Ghieago to purchese stock of this 
corporation, and as a result a°written contract was entered into for 
the purchase of stock by the plaintiff from the defendant corporation, 
and the plaintiff paid the defendant the sum of §2500 for steck of 

the defendant corporation, This agreement was entered inte on the llth 
day of October, 1929 between the plaintiff and the defendant corpora- 
tion. From its terms, the plaintiff was to sequire one-third of the 










9J 

spi ee ‘ —— 

oꝛesas ot OW 
Sodus dele Re 


———— age 


| .OoAOTHO 40 2 i & 
J SdvA.Ll OF g 
seel es yell beLit nointgo heeds 
o PAUOO' ant 30 woinige J ———— 


—————⏑⏑———— ann * * 





———— one bastions —— to ——— we iad bolt | 








| ‘ 


— symaawee oat * — — “ 

—— eit w based aew dae Laitt rel mo, omeo seed BLD co) io wy 
aboot foleeei 8 8 Bo, soktinega® oat, geteoed, RPRTA: oN Mehe Mele 
sttitatelg off saminge sevantiod? Batt od wort edt betoesth. roe. ade, 
ode tnomybert doide most ,toeeghul boxetae, vatror abet gow, bap: 
RIOR, sic? of oJ od: TMltetedg 


Ag 














to onal até eobew beakanyte aan metae J 





xo ofnt boxetae exe toetéace evens thee ao ban sottano o . 


— ‘4 








aontiroqtes tasbuot eb edb work ‘altiltaia’ oat w woota 3 


* to brida~eno anton of om — 28* * * * 4 ? " 


— 


bossa, oft w, — eso — Bk toe, one etoed Fo 5.,; sei 


2 

total 500 shares of the common stock of the defendant corporation 
upon the payment of the purethase price of £25,000, this sum to be 
furnished by the plaintiff when needed by the corporation. The 
purpose of this business was to manufacture ond market an attractor 
device for radios, and other devices invented by one Goldsmith, to~ 
gether with a white metal called "Surgonite." The plaintiff was to 
act as business executive at its La Grange plant, but the business 
failed to be profitable and as « result the plaintiff seeks to 
recover the money paid into the enterprise, 

No charge is made of fraud used to obtain the execution of 
the contract, or fzaudulent representations which led to its executicn. 
It is admitted that no statements such as are required by the provie- 
ions of the Illinois Securities Law were filed with the Secretary of 
State at the time the contract wae signed by the parties ‘herein. It 
is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant corporation was not 
in existence long enough to have an established income and that, there- 
fore the security in question was a Class *0" security based upon 
prospective income, unless the stock comes within the clase of 
seourities defined as Glase "8" securities. ‘his section of the 
Securities Lew, Chap. 32, Par. 258, Cahili’s Ill. ev. Stat., in 
force at the time the contract was entered into, is, in part, in 
these words; 

"Seo. 5. Securities in Class "8", being exempted sles, 

Cet oe make Genel te the etenaee a ue 

owner's secount, such sale not being made in the course of 

and such owner mot being a broker or dealer in securities or 

an underwriter of such seeurities.” 
This securities act is a penal statute, one which imposes a forfeiture 
er penalty for transgressing its provisions or for doing « thing 
prohibited. Vestal Ge. v. Robertson, 277 Ill. 425. it should be 
striegly construed, and matters which are not clearly included cannot 
be brought sithin the operation of such statute by mere construction. 


— 
woleeroqroo gashasteb ed¢? to deets moameo sif To episds 008 istot 
ad of aye eit ,009,88% to ealta saotonny ot to Suemyaq eft moquy 
edt .scitevoquee ait yd bebeen node Ttisdalsl ed? yd bedtetatwt 
ss gateert ts az texttem bee stutectunan of asy eneniewd gist to QoOerg, 

~ct ,délmehie® one yf besneval seoived tadto bae ,eother vot eviveb 
gt cow Vitatelg od? *se¢kmogsuS* dellee Lntom otidw a dw todteg 
esen ian? “ett tod dnt éxdesd ed ati te evituoexs esenieud as toa 

od eigen Tkitaisiq edd dives 8 es bas sides ion od of bellat 
stefegratae oft oon biaq yenou il LPT QOST 

te moitwooxe of4 nigtdo et beaw duari te ‘bam et ogredo on gee 
stottuvens ett of bel sotse ano tivansnatass teelubswst co .tocxtaod ond 
~alvory oi? yd detiupot ors ne dowe utmenetste on ‘todd botdinbs af OF 
to Yraterose od¢ tte bert? otee — eoktinunse ‘glows iit odd ‘te enot 
tH sabored: eeitroy ott YW hemyle aw tonsinee od? sndd ode * ‘etate 
fou enw moltaxeqres tandusteb edt toad toata ta add Yd bebastaed ef 
~oredt stot ban empont betelidstes ne evad et dgirond gael eoaedeinw Ab 
noqy heesd ysituess hey 8 sesiO s eaw moiteeyp oi yettusee edt oxot 
8 aante edt ‘gid¢iw eeeoo soote oft onelay yseoent evitteeqente 
z edt to aottoon atat seoktinuoon "a" geld es beatted eotettwsee 
mt ,.tate .wah .fft et Lieted (Ue dant (68 Vqadd wha’ boldhweee 
at drat at yes — beredus ene fosren09 one ouit oft te woxet 





—â— — ——— — — 














—— — 





—* besqmaxe pated « * * md welezen “ <8 .oue" * 
REDD %. edoel a4 ” : S ale 

J ben oritsaanaueren elif te —28* een ee — 

wp cane ble at sham gated gon Sine dewe ,tavense s'taawo. 


ate?tostede exif « Yo snolvoesaar? ovinesooge od a: 
‘$9 g0itixveen ak reLeeh 7 wexexd 2 ao dove to ae LS DM: 
“ seltiuwase 





oru totaon 2 asseqmi detde ano —R Lsnoq — at tee catttevoos te 
| gaits & gaiod tot to eaoletveny etl aatooorg: ; * 

od Bivode ¢4 o@8d .Li1 TR qwoetaedes «v a SF Ls gual 

tonass dehslont Uxeelo tom exe —* exottan ban .dewttenos | i 


Pee s 


tottourtencs orta yd otut ots foun * lo⸗ao ode ——— te 


Lae. 2 Z Ta — Pa 









3 
Ge Re Le & Pe Rye Goo ve The People, 217 lil. 164. 

The langurzge of the pertinent part of Section 5 of the aot 
referred to is clear. The only question is was the defendant » bona 
fide owner of the stock sold to the plaintiff within the meaning of 
thie section. It appears from the record that the defendant is a 
corporation and was the owner of the stock in question, and that the 
sele was an isolated transaction which grew out of the contract betreen 
the plaintiff and the defendant corporstion. 

The plaintiff seeks to impose a liability in this transaction 
upon the theory that the defendant is not included in fea. 5, in 
that it was not the individusl owner of the stock contracted to be sold. 
In construing this section the general rule announeed by the Supreme 
Gourt in the oase of People v. Goodhart, 248 Ill. 375, is pertinent and 
applicabie to the cuestion before this court. This rule is thet under 
@lause 5 of section 1, Chap. 131 of Hurd's Stats, (1909) ef the act 
concerning the construction of statutes, the word "person* or "persens*, 
ag well as all words referring to or importing persons, may extend 
to and be applied te corporations as well ss individuals. this rule 
applies to the corporstion, within the meaning of the act, as being 
the owner of the stock contracted to be seld to the plaintiff. This 
section was changed by en amendatory act enacted by the legislature 
subsequent to the date of the contract in this ease, reading ss follows: 

——4 sale ins Deu Glass *2 asnner of exempted shell include: 
sale in & bons fide manner of any scourity by or on 
vendo: ory or underwriter thereof, 


* or, and who, a bona owner of 
such security, — of his own — or his own secount.* 






As to the contention of the plaintiff upon thie question, we 
have considered the prior act relating to the sauwe subject, and it is 
apparent that the later legislation excluded the vendor, who is the 
issuer, from its operstion, and that the amendatory ect applies only 


to contracts or sales mede subsequent to the passage by the legislsture 


8 
| PBL SEL TAS qpigees ef? ov 200 avi ad & —X 
tox edt to & aohteo® te treq doensineg ed? te upeuphas ot Ms ae 
giod & tinhaeted od? aaw ef notteeup yimo edt, .taede eh of herneker 
to gutneon od? aidtin 2Rkimdsse edt 6F Bion doote edt Yo-xsmwo MEY 
$04 guebastah eit goad bagons edt mont axtooqae 41 .nehtoss, mee 
elt tad ba - ,oektems of weeds act to aenwo of? gow bas, : 
noseted. foersnes elt to tuo eaty Holde goliocenant. beteigas, then “ 
| sftgitetoqroe deakasteh edt bas mies bals oa⸗ 
moltonanert eidt ai yttiideds @ ogegms of atoog Vedder tale. ae —9 








sbioe ad wt betnenénos doote edt Yo xamve Lanhivibad 4% ton sow 9 tat 
| . smerqu8 edt yo Reonwocas oiar Jasoneg ede moitece eld? gaiont ‘a 
bam tegakévee af (838 +16 88S ctesdhoed «7 gigeed to cenn odt oe taus 
— E tad of eivt aid? tod aid? euoted 
goa odd to (8208S) pedagt athuwd Be L0% seed f sp ttase tek 














aliases to "goateg” brow ed@ yeetutata to sodtountaaoe. — 


baoexs You <eoocteg guitroqnt vo a? gulvenhot bow {69 en Aton bs 
oiux eidt seleublvibat es Slew ee enodtategqmme o¢ holiggs ed-hae et 
giied ea tee sd¢ Yo yotaese odd aidtin wretterorten elt of Sella 
sid? .tkitadelq edt of Bloe ed gt: hotorstnee doote 96% Yo. temwetde 
stutsiatyes odd qd botsn® toa yrotabaems se yd begaede gay modtevs 








sewollet an ore ,oaee ekdt mi toettacn oot Yo etoh oct ot treupeadye 







* "no — pg Far ng —* 
ogee J nh 84.209 20288 fe 
ime AS et aa shee — 

——————— oli te. —— odd 08 BA. 

eh th baa ,toohdue auee edt of gadialor toa —V—————— 









Md aS soo a2 Sobsloat fou wf tavbavieb,edt goad. yond? oft aoaw 


adt ef ody ,tobner edt behvioxe mosdededged vedal.ode todd teereqgga — 


wae eatiqgn fos yrotghavae ett tadt ban ,wodsnteqo att gost gtemeet 


erutesetgeas MEER ER “⸗ 
— VVV——— — —— ball 


Ai mei ; 
ay ff 





a 


4 
of the amendatory legislation. Soby v. The People, 134 ill. 66. 

We are unable to agree with the plaintiff that the 
defendant corporation was exeluded, within the meaning of the act, 
from making an isolated sale of securities under the provisions of 
section 5, in force at the time the contract was signed. The section, 
which was subsequently amended, excluding the sale by a vendor rho 
is an issuer or underwriter, does not apply to the contract which wag 
entered into by the parties in this ease. The plaintiff cites as 
authority the case of Lourgen v. Memering & Goo 260 Ill. Appe 515, 
as contreliing upon the question that the sale of the securities by 
the defendant corporation dees not come within Class "BY ite being 
an isolated sale by the owner and therefore exempt under the pro- 
visions of the securities law. The precise question before thie 
court wae not before us in the ense relied upon by the plaintiff. 

The plaintiff has called te our attention other objections, 
but in view of the conclusions we have resohed, it will not be 
necessary to consider them, and what we have said disposes of this 
appeal, 

Agecordingly, the judgment entered by the trial court is 
affirmed. 

JUDGMENT AFFIRHED. 


WILSON, F.J. AND HALL, J. GoneuR, 


ra 
an 
Pant 


Ba a le * 
89.12 aes — 2 * ‘wes aoitatotges —— ‘edt to 

ods todd Bittaielg odd die serge of sidsau ote OF. —8 

ates ode te aninaee add aidfiw ,betylexe agu noliateqzes tanbag! tee 

ts anoielvorg ons robau soltiqoes, te sice betaloak ne patton ork 

| cao taor⸗ ent oboagte now soattaoe aad emis ant ts sorot ak ae molteos 
ove robaev s vé eine ods gattuioxe qhabaoms Utasupoedse sen dolde 

| yen dokdw foaxtacs eng ‘ot age ton esob axed izenehey —J— teuaed se wh 
es sotic Ytitalele oat +8n60 edd ak selitag od? ao ovat bexetao 


“B18 sag oLLE 086 a4 aadzeuey « ¥ meatuel to ease ade — 
geitinvess edt To alse edt tat aottecnp edt aoqu 











gated ati "3" want sktthe ‘se9e fom aeeb sold oreaxoo ——“ oat | 
og ad?  rebrsy tquoxe oretetedt ae 59 eae * alae betads a 8, 
eid? exoted nossesun seiverg edt ond aoLRinuoee oil? To asota 
“sMhbtalsle odd wi onus beter saxo odd ak gu sigted tom, cow pei 
sano ttveyde xodte anttaesis tuo of delice awit URetidode eat — 
od dom Like th oadeon ovad ow anotausomoo ste. Sasseie ah tae 

sid? to eseoqalb bise oved ow gadw Sas qwodd ceblenge of (rennet 








R 





“ad tryoe Laitt odt yd boxetas taomybut edt .yigadbrooes 





CATA RUNKDOUG 





; ; et Regt patie Sey alk Shirhy ott * 90 hal 
(THAD hy sa a IS. liad 
Sh SEG me a PANO 


Se —— 466 Bek le & *— 
a Oe Sl ahd — * 


ay ys — chevary 
ys Bee, ele. Deepa ee? HE 
Pie Sop Diner fete eS. RG Peg? FARA —— 
; ‘ xs a ae eS ‘ 
adeotoge ats mewk guosres 


» ehee golee che ateiiageat 





ie ot tpi 


i 








36652 ⸗ / 
WILLIAM 8. HEF/ERAN, Trustee, ri APPEAL EX di 
Appellee, — IrAuoeuronr ORDER, 
Ve CIRCUIT CovRT OF 
MAURIOR ROSENTHAL, et al., COOK COUNTY. 
Defendants. 
aaa ah thous, | 290 1.4-Hee 
Appellants. eh ae 


Opinion filed May 24, 1933 

MR. JUSTICE HEBEL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. 

This is an appeal by George BE. Mittleman, one of the 
defendants and part owner of the equity of redemption, from an inter- 
locutory order entered on January 10, 1933, epneinting a receiver of 
the premises involved in a foreslosure proceeding. 

The complainant as trustee filed on January 6, 1933, his 
bill to foreclose the premises described in the trust deed, and as 
a part of the relief prayed for, asked for the appointment of a 
receiver. On complainant's motion, before an answer had béen filed 
by the defendants, but upon notice to George %. Mittelman and EF. 
Freeman, who have title to the premises in question, the court entered 
an order appointing James Turner receiver of the described premises, 

The bill charges thet Maurice Rosenthal and his wife, on 
May 28, 1928, executed and delivered 66 promissory notes sggregeting 
the sum of ©75,000, bearing even date with said trust deed, sil 
bearing interest at 64 per cent per annum, payable semi-annually, and 
evidenced by 476 interest coupons. The payment of these notes wes 
secured by « trust deed conveying the title of the described reali 
estate to the complainant as trustee, 

The bill further charges defaults in the payment of notes 
numbered 15 to 18, and 21 to 40, except note Ho, 23, and in the pay- 


ment of interest coupons due on said principal notes, and thereupon 


‘coheutT MANU 68 MALLIDW 





48. ALO "eo 





SSCL yd ysM belltt aolniqd— J Ae a 

THUG MEY FO WOLMETO aut Gaeeviaee Stew — deageze 

edt Yo Boe .memeldt2W .F -egeeed yo Leesqn ae OF Adify 68 Hee 
-vetal ne wert ,codtqneber te ytiupe otf Yo vactwo! * bes each eb 

to revieoer « valaatoaas s8teL ,OL yraumet ao bers bro 

 sgatbesooty eisectoerel W ni —— 

aid ,S6CL ,o yraumst wo belit eeteux? es dtieatntaaioe ur 
oe bas ,bOob teuvd of af bedinoseh soutmony odd eeosoor et sae 
SS gg gadubdscged "ile ede neidnn gust Meiatg WEbtde O40 te trees 
heist asSd bad cergae ac ototed ,noktom etémentelquse a0 stoviodee 
2 Bae momtortim .f egteed of Sditea neces ‘tod cstahbaoreb ead yd 
borsene druee edt ,colgeeup ai eseheorq od? of eltit evad ott dome ort 
sesaluets bediteseh odd Yo tevidost denen? "ddmat galialedgs xebre as 
wo ,ottw etd bas Ledtaen0% eoltwe¥ todd eageatio Lite edt O°! 
gaitosetage eoton yrodeimeta 98 petevd Lob bas betuooxe BSL 88 yew 
ike ,beob teyt? bise dtiw eteb meve yettaed ,000,879 te ⸗e⸗⸗ 
bas ,Yiloumre~tese eldeyeq qmuane req tase rey 48 ve Feoxedal gakendd 
‘ea aston seed? to tremyay sdf .emoqueo teaeretal SYD yi beonebive 
feot bediveseb ed¢ to aitit edt gatyovaeo beab teutt » yd hoxuoes 
weton to tnomyaq ont ad etiusteb avgtade xedimwk Lid Of 5 
~yoq sdf ai bas g28 .o% egon tqeexe ,O) of Ih bas ,8f of BL horedaua 
soquered? ban .seton Lagioatey bise no sub enoquvoo teeretal to tmom 














\5 


2 

the complainant as trustee and the legel holder of #11 of said 
principal notes, except iios. 43 to 45 inclusive, and the interest 
goupons, «nd because of eid defaults, declare® the entire indebted- 
neces due and payable. 

It is aleo charged in the bill that because of defaults in 
the payment of the promissory notes a receiver should be acpeinted, 
and that the property is seant and sesger security for the moneys 
due, and thet George i+ Mittelman hoe title te an undivided thres- 
Zourths interest, and |. Freeman to an undivided one-fourth interes 

in andi te the real estate described in the trust deed. 

The bill of compicint wss verified by the complzinant. 
Upon thie apnenl the defendent George *+ “ittelman contends thet 
the bill is improperly verified, and that there wes not sufficient 
basis for the court to sect in eppointing « reesiver. 

The epoointment of the reesiver in the inctent ease is 
upon f°ots charged in the bill of compisint, end the osth subseribed 
by the complainent is in pert as fellews: 

abe eavtoats enfin est "rine tot as cottrs 
and things «s are therein ‘tasted end charged to be on in- 
oo potent og Rye ny ok ig as to theee matters and things he 

This oath, in the opinion of the court, is sufficient snd 
complies with the rule that the affidevit subscribed to must be an 
absolute verifiestion of all the allegations of the bill, except 
where the bill expresely states the allegations therein steted te be 
on informstion and belief. Boman v. Humphreys, 220 111. ‘pp. 502; 
Stephenson v. Porter, 191 1il. App. 303; Leek v. Baldwin County 
Gelonizstion So. 178 Lil. App. 93; Parish v. Yence, 110 Ili. App.8; 


Stizrlen v. Heustadt, 50 111. App. 378. 
The bill charges, in general terms, that the premises are 


seant and mes,er security. Thie charce is but the conclusion of the 





bisa Yo Lie te thing Jinyed odd bea auteont ne teamalquee oat 
tearedak odd Des cowbealoas aa et 85 .ee% tqoome jeter Ieqtoa. 
ahetdehal grigas sat pens tosb pedtaeteb bien to geuened ba e sanoques 
aalgnysy bam ⸗ 
mi edfiveted te eausoed fadt Lid ad? ai baguaio oats et a . 
hatakedcs ad Slvode tevieost a. ‘aaton Yitoustinety oat ‘te —52 4 
ro edt 10% ytiryose xegeem Baa tagne ad ydceqoty ont dade das 
~sond? tebivihus me ot eLttd wat momtotteM +f aytood todd haw * phy 
eerepad diwct-oro hebividas ac of momeatt 1.2 baw Peavetat eet 
bee deatd sf?. mt Seditoseb stetes Loot ott ot an a8 
-taralalqnes ad¢ yt bettexav sow talatenon te LEG ed Ooo wi 
tedt ehaotaon memietthi +2 egreed taobaptab ett Leoqqe abst weet 
tae dod iar jou agw etedd ted? fas. ,bodtaver ylreqereak eb titted ett 
bil RROk stevdpoet @ gattnloqge ak ten cd Sxso0 edt tot ahoed 
a arco taefest ex? wh yevdeor edt to tnemtatogge om 9%) o0 














— hpbtemeine Mod od? Dae ,tade tenon — — | 







ian se Sia AOE eon 


4 — ef pene J ⁊8⁊ tides — a9 re ona | 


⏑— 


tqoome AAtae edt to smehtagella edt its) %e. moltegs titer: — 
od of bogate nkevodd agokieyeils edd eedete panongna Liked en otedh | 
780% am .LLf 683 yeyetdoegl .v gaaod...heited baw inoktostobad an 








ataua okeb ie ..v dood 7808 saqh AhSk AOL qedaed: — 


da. aqa ac OL .angel — re au — 
ots, —— ont tate peat ee senate ot 
oat te Be prs edt tid at pyredo ald? . .qiteoen, toys : 










3 

pleader and is not helpful in determining the value of the premises. 
It should have been more specific so that the court could determine 
from the pleadings the value of the property, and from a considerntion 
of the facts and ciroumstances eet forth in the bill, determine 
whether the premises are meager security for the amount secured by 


the trust deed. Straues v. Georgian Bidz. Corp, 261 Til. App. 284; 
rank v. Siegel, 263 Ill. App. 316; Reliance Trust Go, v. Skamski, 
363 Ill, App. 629. 

It also appesre from the bill that this statement is made; 


"that no one ig keeping said premises in repair or in good 
condition; that by reason of the negligence of the defend= 
ants, who have possession of ssid premises, the same are 
deteriorating continualiy and the value thereef is deprecia- 
ting; thet by reason of the foregoing and due to a material 

in the real estate market since the time that the 
anid trust deed was executed, the present market value of 
said premises is considerably less than the velue thereof 
than at the time said trust deed was executed. * * 


This statement is nothing but » conclusion. io facts are 
. stated that would enable the court to determine that the premises 
are in need of repair and that the security is lessened by the 
negligence of the defendant. While the rents, issues and profits 
are derived from the premises and are pledged as additional security 
for the payment of the indebtedness, still such a provision in the 
trust deed does not make it mandatory upon the court to appoint a 
receiver in a foreclosure proceeding unless it clearly appears that 
the property is scant security for the indebtedness, fhis court in 
Erank v. Siegel, 263 Ill. App. 316, upon « somewhat similar pro- 
vision contsined in the trust deed, said: 
"In this court we have — —4 held that the 

pledge of the rents in the trust deed is not conclusive 

upon the chancelior upon the isation for the appeoint- 

ment of a receiver; that while it is entitled te weight, all 

the equities of the ease should be considered and that 

it would be contrary to the nature of a court of ee to 

enforce the exact letter of the contract of mort 


gege re- 
gardless of the necessities or equities involved,” Citing 
C2sG8e 


sone hmong ede to swine st qatniusoton at unrated ton — J 
euteroteb bivos $1009 edt bade ee oftlooys etom seed oved bLuode. 3 
—— a —8* bas .Wregerg edt to sulav edd eget thoeta ont monk, 
eaters teh lid edt ab dezet tos asonntenworto ban ‘atost ode * 

v ueruooe sarome ae ‘FOr YittwoeR Te_cem ota aoekeon qo ae poche 
ieee an iI 188 saxo? bid geiesoad anwexte _abown, fons, ost 
— sua, 0h Sk, ma sa 
; fee “OHA, hth ee 














:obem ef taoaetate aie. tang tga ode oni : 


— te Bs cor — : 





er cst — Siew Te 
~stoexqeb ak toorsds ouriey edt ban 






ete efoe? oi .s0 eu fonoe B. su yatdgon. pe taomotste aa 
eeaioory edt tadt aninroteb ot taupe edt eidane Diane tase, * 
od¢ yo heconeel ai yttuoes ody Fee, dae xisqet te been at cons 

stitony bas eduswt .oemex nag olide .tnabastoh one to soaey 

ysinvooe Lsnottibes oe beghilig ora bas — aut mot Rowe 
ef? af metatvexy # dove Side ,gnanbeddebal sit to. daomyeq edt tot 
8 txiogge ot dxvoo edt soqu yrotabnam th adam gom aod deed. taytt, 
tad etoeggn yleoalo si seeiow gaiheoverg ererelooret a as revises. 
ne tro esd? spooubesdedat edt xok yeduwose gasve ak yexoqory ond, 
~org xelimte taduonon, a mogst OLE sqyA -fit 888 glomeke ov Suask 
ibhee ,beeb tavrt edt ad heaketage ¢ — 


ae ¢ al 4 ¢ evan eo aL mht. 
ovitelécen dan ai be been dared reared sat Bie @ sabeie 


~fxleqcs od? rok pote nent 
ile ,tdghee ot Seltitae ai t 34 5 tet —— cree 


ot — —5 — 6 —— 


ot Sgegtros —A to ——* + arn pall oo ai Papas 











gnteed * bovieval seisiaavoen oft to » 


* 





It has been called to our attention that the payment of 
taxes for the yeors 1928, 1929, and 1930, are in default and that 
this is an alkgation of fact that would justify the court in appoint- 
ing - receiver for the premises. Upon an examination of the receord, 
however, this court finds that objections have been filed in the 
County Court of Sook Younty and that objéetions are still pending 
to the entry of judgment for the default in the payment of taxes, 
and that under the circumstances thie sllegation of fact is not 
such es would justify the appointment of s receiver, 

It might be well to have in mind that suggestions based 
upon facta in the briefs filed in this oase that are not supported 
by the record will not be considered by this court; thet such 
suggestions are of no particular aid and only interfere with the 
work of this court and require a close examination of the record 
in order to determine what facts are not properly before us. The 
order eppointing a receiver will be reversed. 

ORDER REVERSED, 
WILSON, P.J. AND HALL, J. CONGUR, 


te taomyeg oat fede Aoltaeets tue haa belles raed end Lo a’ oh 
_ wedt bas tiusteb ai * oer ate 88eL Red od out wt soxst 
stahogge at tas00 ode yiltaut bluew test toot te noktoytte as ate. aad 
ebtooer oct to aoktantnaxs ns oat. eonalneny ode tet rortocer « * 
ed? at belt koed avai ono tar ot ue tedt aba tt tooo ands 2 Tov ewo! 

_ gaihaes Litte ern eaoltodide tad? bas tae 000 to fay00 ise 
| nena? to Termes yay ont ae Husteh out tor tromghot te yeas tt * 
| fot ek Sost Yo modtayeLSe Gkit aeonstenvoxto edt sehaw ‘tnd? Bae 
_, ,stevaeoat ¢ to nonea dagg⸗ oils eaten hlwow an dose 

beasd —— ted? had ak vrai ot Lion od $y bo at 4 

— ——— 
Kone tedt — white ‘ herebiades of ton kkte Brooer edt qd 
ody dtio oxettodat tine hos bis taivetdtog on to ote axoitessye 
roost att Yo wottunimexs state © ortupon fa» ‘twee atdt to sto" 
Dl el oxotod vixens ton exe etost adv sakeretss of robso at 
ei _ ebeateves ed Lite — 2 yatintogay xeine 
scaamevsn HaGRO 








ail zud HOD oh, rr ina aus * _sHoaats 





* ea «ee ST a AAS ee 
We eke. Aad eee Soe. SET 


* Thin eae oS 
i Ps i Pees oh. yap 

‘ 2 J Phy ae 
Hees i Sanna Ey 
: y , aD fy ayy: 

AX ao my 3 
Le. MRM. te Tite a 

; ; 

* bo i‘, he eo “ie 

3 oP ——— 

RE THUD ERE eB 





A= x VS (ue — 





AT A TERM OF THE ga 
/ 


ra ; / 


egun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, tho segénd day of May in! 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine andrea and thirty-three, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
oo The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JAMES S. BALDWIN, Justice. 
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice. 


JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 


E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 2 7 0 iA. 63°77 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 


VAY 3 1938 the opinion of the Court was filed in the 


lerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 





following, to-wit: 





General to. 8546 Agenda Yo. 2 


In The 
APPELLATE GOURT OF ILLINOIS 
Seeond Dietrict 
Cetober Term, A.D. 1952. 


— — — — 


Ruan Richoleon, 
(dompLainant) Appellee, 


ve 
G.%. Seott, Harriet Seott 


and D.A. Bernett, 
Defendanta, 


Appeal from the 


CLrenit Court of 


LaSelle Sounty. 

Russell F¥. Yunter, Intervening 

—6 
Defendant) Avpeliant. 


— a — — — —— 


— ee — — 


Baldwin, J — 


— = oe — — — 


On February 13th, 1930 Hama Wacholeon, theComplainent, 
(appellee) filed her oreditor's bill in the Cireuit Court of 
LaSalle Gounty meking G. ¥. Seoott, Marriet Seott and D. A. 
Bennett perties defendant. 

In her bill of complaint she sllieged that G. ¥. Seott 
had desired to purchase 7.44 acres of lan! in LaSalle County 
and for such purose she hat loaned to him the eum of $500.00 

reoeiving «a evidence thereof his judgnent note due September 
28th, 1927 and thereafter such note was renewed for a period 
of one year. 


— 





S .04 afmregs 

















ett ret 

SIOUTALIT YO TAU BTADEITA 
— toixtel! — 
aeat 0.4 amok aodetad 


i oe 





ode sox Leek 


‘ | te darod dhevrerth gs inabaw tet 

- eyemue® oflaiiad 

| ꝓrtas vea tert rodent 
otra l Logs 

¥ % 


— imontolomodeds ,mowLodoe arma OFCL aat v 
J ‘tte fav00 theost? att mi Lftd a*not! * sett 
oA a bee ttooe to feanlt * oW Poti —— va 


t 





me 
On October 14th, 1929 she obtained a judgment upon much 
note against the anid G. ). Saotte An execution inseued on the 
geaid jutement wae returned by the sheriff enforged "fo property 
fount," 

«Tt is further recited thet on liny 95, 1929 G. Y. seott 
made a conveyance of the property to 0. A. Pemmett and on the 
geome day the said Hennett revonveyed the premises to Merriet 
Soott, the wife of the anid G. W. Seott. Both of said eon 
veyances were recorded on June 5, 19°99 and {t fe slleged that 
the conveyances were in fraud of her rights as a creditor of 
G. ¥. Seott. 

It was further alleged thet the compleinant hed, on 
Mareh 18, 1999 entered her breech of promise suit against the 
said G. Y. Seott and a judgnent reeovered therein on Yebrucry 
llth, 1936 for the sum of $575.00 and costs, but thet seh 
judgment was never paid. I% wae also alleged thet on February 
17th, 1930 levy had been made woon the presiser by the sheriff 
and a certifiente thereof filed for record in Lat,lle County 
and the bili prayed for the setting sside of the conveyances fo 
as to mnke porsible a levy and sale of the creninses te satinfy 
the two judguenta rendered. The defendants were served with 
mumsons and Harriet Seott filed her anewer in said proceeding. 
Onduly 9th, 1930 Russell F. Hunter, the appellent here 
i in, we by order of court granted leave to file an intervening 
"petition in thie ease within ten days, which intervening peti- 
) tien and onewer were filed July 19, 1930. By the intervening 
petition the appellee alleged thet acting for the Munter-luncen 
‘ lumber Company, of which fizm he was a member, he had, on June 
“1eth, 1999, entered inte a contract with Harrict Seott, one of 
the @efendants in the original bill, for the furnishing of cere 
‘tats lumber, cement and other tilding materiale for the eon 


ss 




























j “Ah a \ 
* Cyan ae ayy 


AR 


oi? xo bormek sobtesern aA — J bane oe 
ssbb i Ba Seatohre ———— we ay 





od? 9 Sas Henne .A 40 off yteaqony pitt to — 


edt tentenn tive sateors te donmed od | ‘Baal 
‘ieteds" 90 stored? bereveoos troemhut 9 * 


eta a Aad al brevet cot dads on 
of asensyevigo aft to ehlen yatéten edt x2 p 
Viniine of muainerg.oct Yo eine has eval. 
(thw Sovson arom atmabastoh edt 46s : xcan BOE 
spalbesoorg bine at sevens wed hoelit toon 
-o7d trailequs oft .undemall »% Lions, et 
——— aS ole: ot evael be 








ragetienD dint sth we mation. ted penelin « 
arnt oo ,had ed ,aedmen @ ene eff ame sok it 
fo ome tiene todexal cttw toantqon « otek 
e799 to natdatmmrt ot wot .Lthe Lam 
stom ad 702 ofatrooar gains 





See 
etruction of # gasoline atetion and dwelling house to be located 
on seid tract of land and thet anid Yerriet Seott had promised 
and sgreed to pay for the arid milding materiale the mim of 
$2,677.86 but thet she had been wneble to do so; thet several 
mib-contractora hed claims against her and hed thrertened to 
inetitute foreclosure proceedings to recover the soneye due 
then. 
He further alleged thet the said liarrlet Seott agreed 
to convey the said premises to him by a good and sufficient 
warranty deed if he would pay the valid cleius of such sub 
contractors an? usterial men and averred thet in oursuence of 
euch agreexent he did pny such claiues to the extent of #2,82°7.14 
and that in consideration of the pryment of theee elnims ond of 
the olaim of his own firm the anid Herriet Seott and her bucband 
@id, on November °Oth, 1928, exeoute and deliver to him a warrenty 
deed conveying the grid premises. 
That thereafter he entered into a written contract with 
the said Harriet Seott whereby he egreed te re-convey the 
premises to her when she had fully peid and discharged her 
indebtedness in the gum of $5,500.00. 
It was further slleged that the deed wae recorded on 
-Mareh 17th, 1930 and thet he hed no information st any time 
of the supposed claim of the said Kona Nieholeon or of the 
character of conveyances under which the asi¢ Harriet Ssaott 
derived here title but that he had acted in good faith, ree 
lying upon her apparent omership of title to said premiaes. 
! Rule was entered requiring all defendants to plea! to 
this petition. The appellee, Goma Tieholaon, and the defend 
| ant, Marriet Seott, filed general dewmurrers to the intervening 
petition, which on Mareh 23rd, 1952, vere susteine?, Ruseell 









eh wr iitted ‘aie wawebar Ag 














Hesrys toon dsivcatl Siie ode * —E — 
tuotokttmn fia boos a YS mat ot hoh kennat Btaw sit 
adie fom to amrato BiLay oth ye Sitaroow eet ES ot 

te sonaveswy of ted beerere bem reer ishroton han 
BL.O88, 89 to trees Ott oF naitatd Mone * mae 


soamimerty bike od atthe to ¢ — 

“or weer ot aénsbooteh Life git 
Ln a 
vu aovr out eid oi wore Leen 

cr J — ne 


fay — vat cd 1p fy ad ery 
— Md nak “net — — 





ate 
fF. Bunter thereupon elected to abide by his intervening vetie 
tion and the court entered an order dismissing the aame at the 
Cost of the appellant. It ie from this order dismissing such 
petition thet this tppent ig prosecuted. 
The appellee, Ruma Nicholson, filed herein her motion 
to diamiaa the aypesl beenuse she aontendes that the order 
Aismissing such intervening petition wae not a finel order 
and therefore that no apyenl could be taken thereform. This 
motion to dismiss the appeal ia taken with the ease. The 
order dismissing the bill of complaint of the avpellant was 
_, final order as to such appellant for any rights he might 
) have in the proceeding and as such wee an avpealable order, 
therefore, the petition to dismiss this apveal is overmiled. 
fhe only other question to be determined upon this 
appenl is the right of the appellant to intervene ant the 
correctness of the order of the court in sustaining the de~ 
murrere to suoh intervening petition. 
In Gaumer va Snedeker 350 Ill. 511 pnge 515 the court 
said: "All persons who have a substential, legal or bene- 
- fietal interest in the subject matter of the Litigation which 
will be materially affeeted by the decree are necessary pnrties 
to a bill in equity. Whenever « perty has been omitted whese 
presence ia so indispensable to - decision of the ease upon 
ite nerits thet a final decree cannot be made without materially 
j affecting his intereste, the court should not proceed to a deé- 
@ision of the ease upon the merite. The objection may be made 
by & party at the hearing or on appeal or error, ant the court 
3 Will uron ita own motion take notice of the omission ani re- 
} miire the omitted party to be made a party to the litirstion 
eren thouch no objection is made by any party litigant." (Knopf 
“va Chicago Real Sstate Board, 173 Ill. 196; Abernathie ve Rich 


a ee ee = 





—F 
i 
£ 
gh 
ae 
— 
ee. 
of 
fit 
gh 







abet sarectoned? mevriad ef Siro too 55 
— sonab ott 9* noses at —— hut 





— J—— 


Ea Shes F 


te ‘edt ace ong tr stare — phaser 






Ho tite Pay vary ait to ‘nottan ‘estan a 
petteon Visanenert ar⸗ oorvon oe hide we 











Pls dsed nn trestthe onan ‘ed’ tonnae ‘doxooh | Dm 
«oh g of hewoor' den ‘pinot ttre ‘od yo veodet 
ahem 9d yam os⸗ota⸗ ont ‘Lodtse= ot —— 
drives weld fetm ston x0 ‘Taecet i) to — 

aot baa aoteetne oid te golden eied kotvon Amo & 
mobteg debt add oF — od * 
— strong hth yetae we “ye thaw i 

‘4 “oli av enttaarnads eer ett eve’ ch 





~5e 

229 Tll. 412; Meliechan ve Yenter, 301 Tll. S08; ‘“ebater va 
Jackson, 304 Ill. 569, Nertinore vs Bashore, 317 111. 535.) 

In Miller va Glark 301 Ill. 273 pere 781 the eourt in 
passing uwoon 4 eimilear question quoted with approval from the 
Gase of March va Green, 7° I11. 365 page 387 ae follows: “As 
we understand the modern practice, any person feeling thet he 
has an interest in the litigation may apnly to the court and 
be peraitted to intervene and beeome a arty ant have his 
gights passed upon on the hearing, and the eourt will permit 
him to become such party on «a proper showing. He would, of 
course, not be permitted to intermeddle when he had no subs 
stantial interest in the subject matter of the quit." This 
gane doctrine has been approved in the onsen of Sharmahan vs 
Stevens 139 Ill. 428 and ‘ightunn ve Evanston Yaryan Co. 217 
tll. 371. 

There are many other authorities to the sane effect but 
it would serve no useful purpose to review the subject further. 

We have examined the intervening petition and ere of the 
opinion thet the allegations therein sect forth state a cause of 
action and thet the intervening petitioner is a necessary party 
to such proceeding. The court therefore erred in sustaining the 
demurrers to such intervening petition and dismissing aame. | 

The judgment of the Cireuit Court of LaSalle County is 
reversed and the ooause remanded with directions to overrule the 
demurrers to such intervening petition. 


REVERSED AMD REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS, 


ee ee ee ee eee ee he 


— — 













on 


wh tees ot LOR -egem EVR VELL LOB teatD) av notin a 
ad? moet Levexcas dé fe hadoup aohteoup. ent inte: mee 7 


a) 
eel 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, | 
SECOND DISTRICT | a I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. 
In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 
Ayaan Cow, 
ee im ihenyear oimour Wordsone whousandanime 


hundred and thirty- 











}) Clerk of the Appellate Court 
—_ — 








yy { 
; hi y 
[ a } 
; 
; 
{ 
3 
i 
Vv it 1 
ane j 
J free wel 
, H 
— 
a F 
a f 
‘ ‘ 
fe 
; » 
ce 
. 
ety 
\ 
; i } 
a 
Ae * 
sen 
1 4 











Hsia 7 J aS 


WOR HET Dt en a ods pty) + —* MiP OT, + ADA 
nbviasl ot leavers lon Ave — Mit — 





moka 


iy 


fic Ve ‘hase orld “ite hte baat un | * i eat 


OY Wil, : near eneveyet hm esl en ener 


ey orelie (urmMi) Bet Luk be Wee shyt hae ee. i. 


; ’ i — lhl Sulla 4 pepe dent 2 
LB facet g Sites rill ·.. Aeon ian epee dealin 


v fait Dy prety snug ph Vo ake TD 





Hd J {7° 


AO 
AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT, 


⸗ 
Begun and held at Ottawa, on tuesdey, the sgoond day of May in 


CCR f 


the year of our Lord one thousand nine — and thirty-t 


within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 


Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JAMES S. BALDWIN, Justice. 
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice. 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 


B. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 2 7 0 LA . 63 8! 


BE If REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 
lAY 3 1933 the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 


ee, 







7 
= 
F 
F 
J 
= 


*I a 


ver 1 See ay Se. Bea 2, 
| a — J wea Oye) « Te f D u ty r 
5 —* Ay. a \ 













— — 
* 

ya to Yap fect ba — — — —— 
i some F F ipa? 
—* — ents — and Stat’ fe 

= 

: = Oe 
; zo *oxtlit to stars eiz’ 2 


— ——— 
—— 
a oobdeet Geet ot aasout — 








—— — J at, ——— 
ot ya ae ie a — lsedt — ——— 
ee 8 








a San ew mee neh Nt roe — 
uy 

iY 

J 

oy 7 

if ro 
i 

\ = —* 

BY 


AO tiw-6e — — — 





J 
_ General No. 8570 Agenda No. 8 


In The 
Appellate dGourt of Tilincis 
Segond District 


Yeusvuary Term, A. 1. 1935. 


Peoples Netional Bank, 
& corporation 
Appellant 
- Appeal from the 


ve Hrewuit Court of 
Warren Ootinty, Illinois. 


Klien Payne, Elizabeth 
Payne, Linele Payne, et al 
Appellees. 
Baldwin, J. 


— — — — — — 


This if an appeal from a deeree of the Cirenit Court 
2 of Warren Sounty (iemissing the bill of eormmiaint of the 
q eppelinnt, ( in trial court) for want of equity. 
: The facte are mibetantially that One Willies Payne, 
husband of Elien Payne, in hia life time, wae the owner of 
certain lands. 
q On Decenber Sth, 1919 the Little York Grain Company 
| recovered a judgment against him in the Gireuit dourt of 
Warren Gounty for $2,499.02. 
q On October 15th, 1920 Clay, Robinson & Coomany also 
- obatined a judgnent against the anid Willian Payne in the 
"game court for the mum of $19,601.03. 


















R&R ,o8 sheen’ 














ed? nt , 
gtoaiLrt to tered etelfecn’ 
tolsciva I saones 


Beer a@ oh oon ——— 


— —— 


aie wort LewqeA 
te duvod tinroedit 
‘ateriley .ytabod meen 


— 0 ten wat (toon tae 
sorryat em tll ht eee tart elatinatedue oe 
to tome oft saw ,ext? — nad ne — * 


=m 

. Agterward, Ellen Payne, wife of said Villiam Payne, 
made some adjustment with such judgment ereditore aml took 
assignnents of their judguent to hereelf. | 

Thereafter Villins Payne died, intestate, and one J. A. 
Tubbe was appointed adminietrator of his said estete. 

On Jamuary 12th, 1994 Ellen Payne, widow of Villian 
_ Payne, aesigned both of said judguents above descri ted to 
. Elizabeth Payne, her doughker, whieh, s eeording to the teati- — 


————————————— —— 


mony herein, wae in considerations of services rendered in 
accordance with an agreement existing between the said Ellen 
Payne and her daughter, Elizabeth Payne. Notice of much sesigne 
ment was filed in the office of the County clerk of ‘erren 


y 


Gounty. 
On October 15th, 19°4 the enid Eiienabeth Peyne assioned 

the snid judgments to her aunt, |4ecie Payne, ant notice of 

such assignuent wes recorded in the office of the Gounty clerk 

of Warren Gounty, [ilincis, »m Cetober 15¢h, 1924. Such assign- 
ment from the testimony herein was for a consideration of 

$4,000.00. 

) On Oeteber 27th, 1924 the complainant herein filed ite 

“pill of complaint in the Gireuit dourt of Werren County, M1i- 

_ mois againet Ellen Payne and Elizabeth Payne, alleging thet on 

; duly 7th, 1994 it had proeurred a judgment sagainet Ellen Mayne 

qa in the sws of $5,553.00 and costs. It appeare from the record 

— that nothing further was done about the auit until on or about 

"May 92nd, 1931 when an amendment wae unde to the original bill 

4 Of commlscint making Ligzie Payne a perty to the proceeding and 

summons wan thereafter served on her on Aucust 4th, 1931. Lizzie | 

Payne filedher answer to the amended bill of complaint and there 

after the couse was referred to the Master in Chancery of sqid 









































—— wie 
erent Aeten btats to etiw ,oryat nOLeT , 2 
doo? hen — Serpe cary, og Asiw exontantha § 


wh «& OHO Bra uta non — ————— 
estates hiss sist to rotente nina hesetogca 

mELELET to wobhe yomyat mo Lie ONE Me 

of ful txoneh eveda etwemghsrt bisa te —9— 
wttood ott of —R a ao tiſvu etotetgnnah cet — 
at bevebnes seetvres to erottenphkenoe st ll ait 
relia hiew of? xeewtad aritaten trosmenya | oe toe 
ayiags H8eq te eodeet ,enygol foedael esadcgunh nod 


meter" we iehier-etionen qae to enktte ott at 


te eolton here, Orrget pier ti hey oan oo 5 
gealp vwimiroe oft Yo aeftto wet eh dehrooet aw 4 


eth betes atoon tnagts 4 000 8 * 
assed _ eter, merrteit 20, suo  f Stee Re 
1 duté itgelis —— sedan ken, * * 


it 


fared xe mo Ltdess tom ont oF 
Litd taukyixo, ih ot asy * 
bare ga theooore ote ot — * —— 
hum tt feet atte hina al ao an mo 
<orodt ban amtaLnoo to ne 8 ee 


i 





Ser 
court for proof end conelusions. The Mester heard the evidence. 
and filed his report in the court reeoemending thet the eause be 
Aismissed for wont of equity. 

Objections filed to said report an’ by agreement were 
ordered to stend in court as exceptions. The court overruled 
auch excentions and sueteined the resort of the master am! dis- 
miesed the bill of comolaint for want of equity at the cost of 
the complainant. 

Tt ia an elementary rule of law that to be entitled to 
the relief asked the complainant hes the burden of proving the 
allegations in hie bill of complaint. 

It ia also the well settled law of thie State that the 
burden of proving fraud rests upon the person asserting the 
frawi. As wan naid in the case of Kaska ve Venkat 341 T11. 

358 . 362, "Fraud ie never presumed but cunt be proved by 
_@lear and convincing evidence. A mere suepicion of frm is 

not sufficient but if it exists it uct be satisfactorily 

ghown. ‘The evidence must be dlear ant cogent and muct leave 

the mind well satiefied that the allegations of fraud ani mise 
representations are true." The court used the identical language 
in the enses of Garrett ve Gorrett 343 Ill. 577, P. 590; 

Javoraki va Sujewieg 334 Ill. 19; Sehiavone ve Ashton 332 

Tll. 484. | 

But it is urged by the anpellant herein thet beesuse 
the parties are members of the seme family or related, that 
am inference of fraud showld be rained, ‘e know of no rule 
of law which presumes dealings between persons relate? to 
_ each other or who ave meubers of the same fasily to be fraudue 
q lent. Ho auch presumption arises but ae herein eet forth 
allegations of fraud mist be proven clearly and conelusively 
















fae 


ot easilt bd 


“etow trenmsenge et belt dane Shite of hort * 
beficeevh sxtroo oH? t ee — ihe here 
anib Ma ‘eiteon Gt) to sogss sit bomtetasa ten Windkd 
Yo guoe ore ts Ythme Se 3 * —— * as 


fie a ae a SO sca 








erie 
# 


* —— * rebel ane yout tre 
ete tanen Ye en ii 
iid ats oeadn otddSn war netdiee Trew od®! tn 
ole geti¢vores —J odd xhartt menor tunes gettvond 
Shr the’ ‘gelne? av oseat to eon » bel at bine 8 
“gd Bevoee ad Fusne deel hei ‘ asin — * 
et hime Yo Hotedcaim omen A” 1 lllaashe i rbont 
vitrosabte tion ee Pome * torre ft * * fs 






= 





hie tno atti ui 


5 * 
ae 


7 Hi , ee toe les tk 


ee 

and this is true regerdlese of the relationahip of the varties. 
tn Garrett va Garrett, supra, page 580, the court held that 
“the relationship of the parties ia merely a cirounstanee which 
may excite suspicion, but if will not, alone end of itself, 
amount to proof of fraud." Yo the game effeot are the caver of 
Imthy & Oo. va Paradies 299 T1ll. 380; Ayers Het. Bank ve Sarber 
287 111. 182; American Hoist an’ Derrick Go. ve Hall 208 T1211. 
597. 

Ligzele Payne, the present owner of auch jwignents, ace 
quired title thereto for n valunble consideration, sesording 
to the undisputed testimony herein, and notice of her ownership 
was recorded prior to the filing of the suit of the oommlainant 
herein and yet she was not made a party to the suit until nearly 
seven years after the original suit had been filed. Her title 
to these judguenta haf been derived through her niece. ‘The niece 
obtained titled through her sother, in payment of moneys due to 
her for services rendered to the mother in accordance with the 
egreenent existing betveen then an? which hed existed for 
gome yeores past. Rach and every sssignment wae made amatter 
of public record available to any verson interested. It is 
apparent thet the esaignnent of Ellen Payne to Elizabeth Peyne 
wee made severe] months before the counlsinant procurred the 
' Judgment deseribed in ite bill of com leint. 

Such assignments are not real eatate, yet if they could 
be so regarded the judgnent of the complainant would not be a 
lien upon then or either of them. So for ns the evidence dige 
Closes herein no exeoution was issued upon the judgment of the 
Complainant. It is provided by Statute of this State, Shaoxter 
97, Seetion 1 of Cahill Tilincis Revised statute 1931 ne follows: 
"A judgment of a onourt of record shall be a lien on the real 


in, 












he 5 —vV a — at shee —* J a batman 
cMaatd Yo, Pris enoka soem ters wh tent — 

te senso add ore toate pes a ie 
toduel av rot tol ereyh ORE p LTE eR, ety 
patt 808 fhs8 av, 000, phate bora, te ont. me 


— fig | ‘bats cone — * 


——— “ re me ny in 
Bion yst Tt toy qatetae inde toa oxg wf 
a of tom Disrow tanta lonoe oft te eh 3 
wy BB ponantve of? ga net Ob et to 
one te Sermarghart, gtd Bi a! borane bide * 





— 


oer 
estate of the person againat whom it is othined situated with 
in the Gounty for which the eourt ie held, from the time the 
geome is rendered or revived for the period of seven years and 
m longer. **** ‘hen exeoution ie not issued on a judgment 
within one year from the time the aame becomes a lien, it shell 
‘theresfter cence to be a lien, but exeeution must isaue unon 
such judgments’ st any time within seven years.” 

It ie aleo urced by the complainent thet the Master ree 
ported only hig conelusion as to lew and fact relative to the 
merits of the ence agninst Liszie Peyne and thet his finding 
was to the effeot thet such judgment had become dormant as 
againet Elien Payne and therefore could not be enforced as 
against Ligsie Payne. He sleo found that there wars no frend 
proven ae aginst Ligaie Payne. ‘Ye see no error in this renort. 

There are sone other questions raised by both varties 
to this proceeding but in view of our decision we deen it 
unnecessary to discuss them. 

The judgment of the dircult Court of Yarren County is 
affirmed, 


APPIRMED. 


' ¥ at eh be 





"edit, ark ett non? — at, fence. yor dons, Pi 
4 , hee guag oeveo te helseq ade xo, bortetver. 50. J 
Serene 0. oramet tom ot satan att. * 








_ est om ene, 1 oud doa * ox 3 
ese Gidt a2 Sexe on BARB 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, 

SECOND DISTRICT fs I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 


of record in my office. 


In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 





Appellate Court, at Ottawa. this day of 





in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 





hundred and thirty- 








Clerk of the Appellate Court 
(65027—1M—9-31) «3507 





Y 













f 
—* 
2 Ps 
3 
i 
—* 
eit ig ay Ae 4 ‘ a — 
To ‘ ae OVE Paya 
i 4 Mat 
ci i] =f 
* 
on — a, 
i 
be 
is § 
i ae a f D = 
— 
iy 
* 
4 
v mJ, 
i ry 
i 
Thy 
6 i 
1 U J 
AS 
Mate 
iv ee! 
A —— 
— 
* 


— at a ; — 9 OA ads. 9d mind mowers sha! — 


———— nil —J ees “od Sa fogir 1 a A ont 


—— — —D———— ee ah Shae wad ti itolaige mild 0 

9 Oy *— Wt —— tank 
ish. ty, tage —— hoe putin * Lips salar — 
— — id sual Lone 


I Tels ae 
i en 
— Livia inaply Wie byssi Ihe ty anf att — Be 
‘ 3 i * IZ be 
Vs soem — 

¥ : re | ae ec. 






J bts 





the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JAMES S. BALDWIN, Justice. 
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice. 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 





E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 


eee ene - ~ j Z- 
9”%0 I.A. 638 


BE If REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 
MAY 3 1633 the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 








J 





a 





a0 itiv-of ,sbrawgsets 2amy 


att go belt} saw — — to me 


General Mo. 8613 Agenda Yo, 29 


In The 
Appellate Gourt of Tilinois 
Second District 
Pabruary Term, 4. D. 1933. 


— — — — — — 


People of the State of Tllincis 
ex rel. Osear Neleon, Auditor o 


—ñ ae 


Publie Accounts of said Btrate 
domiatnant, 
vs 
Lombard State Bank, ef al 
Defendants. Avpenl from the 
* * - Cireauit dourt of 
Appeal of mm Page County. 


Village of Lomberd 
(Petitioner) Appellant, 


vs 


Thomne ©, Pull, Receiver of 
Lombard State Bank, ' 
Apnellee. ) 


— — — << — 


Baldwin, Je 


The Lomberd State Bank was Closed on or about leocenber 
19th, 1931 by the auditor of the State of Illinois, and 
thereafter a receiver, appointed by such auditer, took 
possession of the said bank. 

Subsequently Osear “elson, then auditor of the ante 
of Illinois, filed his bill of complaint in the Cireuit 
Gourt of Mu Page Jdounty. 











wi eral 










ett at 

whortirr to tertrod etattogcs 
totttatd baoone — 
ae 


edt mort Lawl lt 
Yo daued thvoetn | * + 


Seewved age? otf 


~ De 

Thereafter the Millage of Lombard filed ite inter 
vening petition in euch proceeding in and by whieh it was 
recited thet such village wan an T)linoia corporation and 
that it hed collected large sumsunder its taxing powers 
on behelf of certein bond holdere under the local improve. 
ment atatute of the “tate of Tllincis; thet one HE. A. Logan 
wae the villarce trearmurer and arg such treasurer was custodian 
of ali/the funds belonging to the villnge; that such 
treamurer had deporited the said moneys in the Lombard state 
Bank, which had, at the tine of the filing of the intervening 
petition, been placed in cherge of 2 receiver under appoint= 
ment by the Auditor of the Stste of Tllimia. 

It was further slleged thet E. A. logan, treasurer of 
the aaid village, had wrongfully deposited such moneys in the 
Lombard State Bank and thet the bank had knowingly end wile 
fully received such deposit ant failed to give a bond therefor 
and thet thereby the Losbard State Bank was n trustee of said 
funda for and on behalf of the Yillage of Lombard and reqected 
thet ite claim of $37,136.83 be allowed as a preferred claim 
against the ssid benk. 

It appears thet the mm of 937,136.85 wae evidenced in 
part by a certifiente of deposit and in part by a general 
oheeking secount in the said bank, a11 in the name of B. A. 
Logan, Treasurer of the Village of Lombard, Illinois, but 
that guech mim wae the total amount of moneys on deposit in 
_ the snid bank at the tine it closed ite doors. 

j The reapective parties to such suit entered into a 
stipulation reciting the frets substantially xe sbove set 
forth and the ease was heard by the court upon such stipue 
lation. The court refused to allow the said claim as a 
preference tit did allow the elain of the intervening peti- 








9 

















—XR 

aeotnd ot DeLE dradeed Yo oRoLLA oxsompetoomndtt 
owe #i doietw yo fen at muthesoor Horm eet mont ttoe 

bars aotaauocras stomte tT a. naw ——— fear test bei 

sewed nixed att sohntrastsa owtat ‘petealion hart. on — 

ena —— eat sebau he bod ho ida to * * 


dow geet? yogetity odd of getareled efmrk 
etete fendwet ade mt veo — net ——— —* 


Ni 
‘ibe 


te ewuemineet ieumet Pent 


wt dwomehios anw rn.aerytt ‘te eaten er nies | 
foroney a yd tray mt he Hoos 20 etmnhstm 
14K Ye oman. ont mi Sth Sd hom sett mt tem 
dint paboatest — “te enetiev oat to * 


—E—— ath sopate —A 

a oir Peteine giea dome mt: nattemy 4 | 
tee sveds ao yfiattnatuden sitet: — ne 
_ Aare sear deseo wae, * ma 


thee 
tioner as a genera), Claim against such bank ani a decree 
Was accordingly entered disallowing the preference but allow 
ing the claim se a generel @lain. 
, The Village of Lomberd proseoeuted this appeal from such 
deoree. 

In ite brief and argument counsel of the Village of 
Loaberd has commented consifernbly woon the statute of the 
State te the effect that the funde should only be paid out 
on the warrant drawn by a villassre officer. ee do not believe 
thie statute hes the slishtest effect upon the trensection 
in thie case. The village treseurer is the custodian of the 
villoge moneya and it was hie duty to keen the money safely 
and pay it out upon appropriate warrants or orders. omen 
prudenee would ddetate the keeping of such moneys in s dee 
pository rather then in hie per@onal possession, but the 
pleeing of such moneys in & denository is not a paying out 
of the funds within the meaning of the statute. The deposit 
of such moneys in this bank was merely for hie convenience 
and ite possession of such moneys is exactly the same «a ite 
poaression of soneya of any other depositor. 

Goament ie made upon the lisbility of the villarce 
treasurer but we do not regerd this subjeot as an iesue 
in thie onse. The sole and only cuestion to be determined 
herein 4e@ whether or not “oneya deposited by the villoge 
‘treasurer to his credit as such treasurer in the Lombard 
Senate Bank conditutes a trust fund so thet the treasurer 
or the village might be entitled to the allowance of its 
Claim ne a preference, 

There oan be no doubt but thet it wae the businese of 

the Lombard state Bank in ite conduct of a banking businesa 
| to receive dencsits of money fron ite various patrons ani 


i 









visto ayeper ena oth need oe tub ait iw ny a 
AAT ⸗⸗ 


eth mn oman seit 2 iat a vee a 
storks ccm) eaito wes, * 


wee 

to place the sane to the eredit upon ite records of the 
various depositors, and in accepting deposita from the 
village treasurer the bank violeted no lew whatever so far 
ag the record in this case shows, The mere fact thet the 
moneys so devosited by such treasurer vere the property of 
the Village of Lomberd to his erediftt as euch trenamurer did 
not create the relation of trustee and certul cue truest tut 
erented merely the Xrelation of debtor and creditor, thet is 
to say, the village treasurer became a creditor of the bank, 
and the bank beanme a debtor of the village treasurer, to 
the exten@ of the funie so deposited with it, but this rela= 
tion exacted nothing more or legs than the liability of the 
bank to pay out the moneys ao deporited by auch village 
treasurer in the same manner and to the anmme extent and w:e8:N 
the seme terms as that of any other depositor. 

In Woodhouse ve Grandsl] 197 Ill. 104 pare 107 the 
court in passing woon 2 siniler mection saif@; "In the case 
of a general deposit with a bank to the oredit of the de- 
positor, the relation created in not thet of principal and 
agent or of trustee and ceatui que trust, but is merely that 
of debtor and creditor, and such derosite belong te the benk 
and beeome a pert of itte general funde am’ there is nothing 
but a liebility se 2 debtor to repay seeording to the custome 
and usages of the business." 

In People, ete. ve Seward State fenk 268 Yl. App. 32 
a very similer question was before the court. We held thet 
the depasita of moneys by a treasurer (sehool) in his official 
capacity are subject to the same rules of law ac relates to 
other depositors ant ween the inecliveney of the bonk with which 
such deposite are made, he is not entitled to a preference, be- 
cause of such official position, ant such rule of law is anpli- 







te 
Aten 


2 
⸗ Yo abrooen ett oc tthore ont Ci ome mm 9c 


—A ae 


ah: * 


30 vineqony aie oxen coment can wd —2 on 
nip tomunneet “ora ae there abd oe ——— to 


—— Burien 8 

















ott to HEX tdatt oad —— anol * ros — 
F eM toa Mae), 

enet ity ftom wt hatteoosh: on eyence ott thro xae 

ak 3 i bef Te 

soca han #rodea geme ai? of baa mame see on 
& potty 


“rettnooeh xoea wu ‘to tect ant 
ode nor ong sot eed ‘ver ———— * oanoxth 


eeul # 


Pir wd —* i ae 


gens ott at ‘ihtse mobtoonp 3 aniteds * mons ; 
20h att Yo tthero sit of “stead J Hate ‘teoced ie 
ay Lecioakse %e fuel toa a betnors » mottaton 
tactt yomom at tixt ,deoret omy trteoe ban ovromt 
sheen ont ot aber. » store “hes 08 tho an * 
—— at ort Pata «deurr tasaney pet te tees a ° 
exotan att ot nations wor oe sotdeh a we yeilid 
* — ‘it 


ae aa 2itt sae ** ⸗ — — 





— 


2 — 
F Me 
pay —* ——— —R 


ole 

onble to this case. The mere fact thet the treasurer of the 
Village may be personally lisble, if such ia the ence, does 
mot alter the character of a genersl depo#it in a bank in any 
mamnier rhatever. 

Tt is acserted that the anid bank @id not give any bond 
to the village and thet the vilisge did not ndort an ordinance 
4esigneting any partiouler deoository of the moneys of the said 
village. Coneeding this to be true, such fact ia, in our judge 
ment, immaterial to the iseuers in this case. 

The decree of the Gifauit dourt of Du Page dounty denying 

the preference but allowing the claim re a general alnaim ia 
offirmed, 


AFFIRMED. 



















vied ads Se eeeegiae — snana ae aga: 
ga tyereh weed met wt ho iB ee a J 
mete Loreto a a8 ts to one vervolt· toe abe 















STATE OF ILLINOIS, \ 
SS. 


SECOND DISTRICT J I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 


Appellate County at Obtawas tise ee day, of 





___in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 


hundred and thirty- 








Clerk of the Appellate Court 
(65027—1M—9-31) 537 








>) 













} 
4) 
x 


sti i ie 





aedas fatty sada cbt? far) iu yh — al 9 in su to : 


4 —— 


— athe — — — — ii 


= 






Ce eee ee, Se ee Sve eae ay — — 


J ani ah 9 J 
buy ; nd ne m 





t 
. 


ee se (fe) 





the year of our Lord one thousand nine ndred and thirty-three, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 
Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice. 
Hon. JAMES &. BALDWIN, Justice. 
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice. 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 


E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. 








BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 


WAY 3 1933 the opinion of the Court was filed in the 
Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 


* 


— 


a. 


— 


eee 


yas” ! 
> 
> 


— — 


— 
Sarena Tee 





+ & 

a 
i 
tas to 








“i Pers 


ee 


ey: 


aRveds eae Kero: ti0.- 
MT oe 


— SECON 


eet ae 





& 





AMOR . 





J——— ye 


sot. fake 








nat 


~ ee 
— 


— 


— 





General No. 3624 Agenda Mo, 36 


In The 
APPELLATE OCURT OF TLLINOLTS 
Seeond District 


February Tewm A.D. 1933 


— — — — 


The Firet National Bank of 
Braidwood, Illinois, a cor 


poration, 
Appellant, Avveal from the 
Sireult gourt of 


Kankakee Gounty. 


vs 


The Highway Sommissioner of 
the Town of Reekville, in 
the Gounty of Kankakbe and 
State of Illinois, , 
Appellee. 


—— —— —— — — 


— — — — 


Reléwin, Js 


— — — — 


The appellant (plaintiff below) filed its suit against 
the appellee (defendant below) to the Sotober Ter: 1929 of 
the Cirenit Gowrt of Kankakee dounty to recover a deman? due 
it in the mum of $2,180.00 

The declaration consisted of two counts, by whieh 18 
was alleged thet the defendant has been infebted to one 
Harvey Gellinger for lshor, services and saterials an? thet - 
said Gellinger has aseigned his elaim therefor to the plain- 
tiff and thet the defendant had failed to pay the eame. An 
affidavit of claim was filed by the plaintiff. 








— 











Sf Lon abeen 


dots Son 


wats te ont of roroxedt? atato nht 


$2 totdtw vd ewtrare ont * boon tan00 
| E feta — pi inde ne 










mat? at 
BIONIAdT YO TOD wradaKeTA 
toduterd fmopee 


SEOL .C.A ome? yememdet 






he 


eee 


The defendant filed seven pleas ant hie affidavit of 
merite, which it is not necessary to detail herein. Later 
certain pleadings were filed. 

At the May Term 1932 of auch court the cause wae tried 
by the court without a jury and at the oonclusion thereof the 
court found the iseuer for the defendant and entered judgement 
egainet the plaintiff for costs. From auch judgment thie 
appeal is progeauted. 

Various errors areassigned by the arrellant wut from 
the conelusion which we have reached it will not be nevessary 
to discuge each error separetely. 

The facts in the case an disclosed by the evidence are 
thet Harvey Gellinger was 2 contractor engrared in the con= 
struction of hard ronda. On or about July 14, 1922 he entered 
into a eontreet with the defendant herein for the construction 
of certain herd roads therein specified for the total sum of 
$3,950.00. He filed his bond and entered unem the performance 
of the work and fully performed the contract. The work was 
eecented by the County Superintendent of ‘“ehways end from 
the evidence it arpears thet the work so performed was ene 
tirely satisfactory. | 

In the paynent to suoh contrector for the construction 
of these ronts the Hqchwey Commiseioner isened certain orders 


_ @? vyousghers dram upon the treasurer of the defendant, s11 of 


which were in proper form and gome of which have been paid, 

but there finally remained an indebtedness of $3,016.00. This 
was afterward reduced to $2,150.85. Contreetor Gellinger upon | 
receipt of the various orders or vouchers assigned the same to 
the Piret National Bank of Braidwood, who ie the plaintiff here- 
in and the appellant won this appeal. It appears thet certein 












teenie horedas hen —E— tt oR weintad « ode | ps 
eitt taomyht dom mort Ladeoo cot miantata ons 


Yo mim Letot edt set helttoone —* nboor eat hed 
snaneotred add mec boredeo saad fren evel * bette * 
aw trow wif? orroce ode | 


wrraberr —“ boirant corr tan bese — on! , 

HAN SNR eee we — Be ket Rae mest ne 

to Lf ,tnahewteb ode Ye rocimaer? ae noe eae 
Fy 7; rd gah 


shteq need overt Hotetw to mop fra weet 


* TR. 


“ater 00,010, 88 ' te asanheadend ren rast 


% J i v 
Beasts Re RMS ey : 


ttoqu⸗ re xetonnine \en.08r, st ot 


Pugin Mig pana — pt Ps OPA: : 













y 


| oat Mibtntata ‘ott et ate 
—A— * 


Me da city nerd 
4 





interest has been paid upon the indebtednere remaining due, 

The defeniant by ite vericur pleas, to whieh a demurrer 
Waa not sustained, contended first, that it was mot indebted 
to the plaintiff; second, the five year etatute of Limitetion 
was pleaded, and third, that there ware no money in defeniante 
treasyry or tex levied to pay such warrants at the time the 
contract herein referred to was mode. 

It is not denied that the orders or vouchers were Leeued 
to Harvey Gellinger as alleged and it is mot denied that the 
work waa proverly performed by the anid Gellinger. In feet, 
the proof ia overwhelming in fsvor of euch proposition end it 
is proven and not denied that he has not been paid in full for 
mich services. 

The evidence herein establishes the fact that the lest 
payment wes made to the anid Gellinger or hie aseignee on 
Mareh and, 1928 and therefore the five year statute of Limij 
tation did not expire at the time thie suit was filed, even 
if anplicable te this case, but such etatute has no appliestion 
here under the undisputed evidence. 

It in next said that there was no money in defendentes 
treasury or taxes leviet! for the payment of the work required 
te be done by the ead Harvey Gellincer umer his contract. 
Be this as it may, it ie certain thet neither the Township nor 
the Highway Commissioner could contract for work, materials or 
labor to be verformed and accent the benefita of it and there- 
after evade payment of the obligation by asserting thet it had 
no money with which to pay the obligation. We know of no ruje 
of law which would ewport any such proporition. 

The evidence is conslusive in thie cane thet the Township 
aid receive an? accent the service so rendered by Gellinger ant 
for several yenra recognized this obligetion ae a valid outstand- 






























oeird quis hnwen exmaboddohal welt —F hing sms bare “ 
wait 2. Peteheee ee WEES 
serum) 8 dont oe sanote aure tare age hil teahare teh Prise | 


sebiphat tia can bh 8 tact tank? hohertiso9 — —— 
aortoaatt to stutate aaa ovit one iercone (ithe tan 
seat toh ak —— oe naw rset teste baat Deo ‘ whe ter i 
f Wake “ae sf de a 





ee ee oe ee a ae 
“abow nae + 08 perro tes ntoved . 
—598 + " hes 
beune F oraw ‘eiaduwoe 0 aro bes ‘ene ‘toda bolaeh # ih rs q 
— ni rah — 
ad? tart hetnad bon et a3 haa doqnlia ea —— 


stead ‘at sragebtfed bisn ade * haumr aduoc ete sqone 


* — Bie Be ie rene + awl aed — nid —J 


tt fete ‘pettinoneee: deare te row me “sniatesvants & ek 


BaP tals Mg Ge Be Rae 
sor for ae dtag — Seat mt ond ‘of — Lenin von fs 


“aj oe 2h art eh Pa WOR, 


Sah Ml Seink Ae: a 


J 9 
fest ‘ote test ‘toa att node hEdagee | ee ert ae 
“ate sonntens ‘etd to wpa iiee bise 8 of obaa woe teem 
iti io “+ we ‘ee 


“eben 5 * odurtate ead ovit ont ovwrertt hrs beg dove 
— perry ara 
ovo bees’ ase tte aise omte one ta wrt ton — q 





: Peps ty = 
aotinettqss on Bs ‘vtetade ‘tome Mid 0m aint of & 
5 J —* an 3 
* tok ox 
oe ee P wee Fey yi om 
semannoty! at ——— on sae wos tod? ‘nine — a? 
miei Bat sept vs. ‘ath is 
herkipex tree ont to érrasrenc att 0% ‘he twos — —9— a 
serene as Saga 
stocténa aid unten TenmhLieh wornnt bizin ie : * 
yok i —J peo! is ba 

on qtdenwot ont resid tos told minors a2 a3 ewan 22 kn 
ae * J oy An —* “ney Ve es or 


od Wiakebdas cleo sak  decmbials abaed 


sorodi hin $f Yo uf ttowed of deca Bis bam , i of 
oan Nae GACH — He i 

has * tad? ardtaomna wf aottamstdo att to mie where te or 

Marya re — J Pa he i Vil F 

ager oat Yo weit J moktep tito one ee * tio triw frie dtiw y if 

nF — pt —— mer | 

“Vantdtnocery einen we troqame Raver —“ ate apg : 

¢ va ah Mes 9 * ‘yr <) iP i” J 

arttascwe att tnd onse exit mt ooten o⸗ at | 


hove ‘woteen Seth, f et Ae J oe 4 * 
has niff9n hc paws on —* 
hey at Maa a —J Ee Freel Leen | —— 

—W — 


——— shaw a * ment to nice hen inpoves 










ee a 
ee 


ing oblignetion and from time to time made payments of principal 
and interest thereon and we hold thet having so reoognized the 
 @bligetion as a valid outstanding obliestion (Abdill ve Abdill 
202 Til. 232; O'Hara ve “urphy 196 T11. 899), the defendsnt 
will not now be heard to deny the validity of the obligation. 


The judgment of the Circuit Jourt of Kankakee Gounty is 


reversed ia the couse remanded. 


REVERSED AND NEMANDED. 


















WD: eo nie 


my ey 


if te eo pew 





pee 
ie 





* * ae wa * * ¢ — i oa . x 
a toy eas ; 3 * ae a ; J — : ey ee ? * 9 trast * ane 





ig : * * — — Ae er Ae Ba ala ini. 
ens D tt aay slits potdactactoes 


ey fC IKeh aoe thar ae eee wnt Me Rae Ree ten 4 ik 















hy 


Mt ie emt it 





ays .tHLL see Pie ater Ore oe ad ork a 








—J—— — 


ear obit ae % 
$ iff Ms 


sind — ea — 















—Vx —— 
tebe 








STATE OF ILLINOIS, | 


SECOND DISTRICT — I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. 

In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 


Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 





An the year of our Lord one thousand nine 





hundred and thirty- 











Clerk of the Appellate Court 
(65027—1M—9-31) S307 








— 2 ae a J 







Oil pe ead alba hae Ti tat) 408 Od ol arta d 
fistiet of, Adlok Lai Raine bth 9“9 oH te — “ds rus. silt 
ar boalgttecw svocka itl Wea ee has ahd i! — wef} to Yqao 


j Oe, 
— ne 


i! hpade ig. Brunt que te HHT: 1 — ye 
jd) | nee ews ya, es) Ee ee litt eal ane 


: j 
ee eet oe rd — — — 


55 — ny 





— {3% — 


i 


fA 


AT A TERM OF THE APPELLATE COURT —— i = 





Begun and held at Ottawa, on Tuesday, the“second-tay of May in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and thifty-‘h ee, 
within and for the Second District of the State of Illinois: 

Present-- The Hon. FRED G. WOLFE, Presiding Justice. 

Hon. JAMES S. BALDWIN, Justice. 
Hon. THOMAS M. JETT, Justice. 
JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk. 


E. J. WELTER, Sheriff. wb 0 I.A. 6387 


BE IT REMEMBERED, that afterwards, to-wit: On 
MAY 3 1933 the opinion of the Court was filed in the 


Clerk’s office of said Court, in the words and figures 


following, to-wit: 













A1EGTI A GH? AG RAE Be —— 








go) ,aweeeO * KLex — 


eis were ee eS eh * 








sdieniltl *o etsl? edt ene ton — — 
— guihteer? Stow 0 tae — 
a 
scotch (Pat 4 BAMORD” tbe 
baa) Ae gia sas ES MOORHOS 3 Sre veee 


— 
cal 
> 
— 
sie 
= 


é ; 
f a. iw & os 


— Asrac Aaa . 


was CHASTE, ss Sue ene ior per emu 








— 


74 39 
General Ho. 3639 Arenda Wo. 41 


In The 
Appellate Gourt of Tllincie 
Seeond District 


Yebrusry Tern, A. Dp. 1933. 


— — 


Anpellee 9 





Ghearles A. Fifield, 






Apmenl from the 
Yourt of 
¥nox Gounty. 


vs 
Curtiee dandy Jompany, an 


Tilinois Goxporation, ere, 
— ppelinnt. 


Baldwin, J « 


— — — — — 


On Jamary 15, 1932 the appellee, Charles A. “ifield, 
purehaned fro his brother, Roy P. Fifield, who woe engaged 
in bubiness under the name of Galesburg Specialty dowcany, 
certain sutombiles and trucks, On the same day he sold to 
his brother, Hoy ©. Fifield, one edge truck snd one Buick 
Sedan for the sum of $2,000.00 upon a conditions! asles con- 

tract, by the terms of which the title to the property sold 
“was retained in the seller until the anount was paid in full. 
These two cars were a part of the property whieh appellee had 
purchased from his brother on the date above set forth. 

The appellant on or about Anpri} 13th, 1932 obtained a 
judgment against the said Roy *. Fifield, trading as Gp,lesburg 
Specialty Comany, in the County court of Knox County, Tllincis, 


eet a 
ateniL{t te fuvod etalfeqrs 
NY tolntes heoent 
— 8 oN Sake —— — 
— SERS EA wT vea 
* 
WMagq!) 
— aelioana 
oft next Seon’ ) , Hit 
te gxuo hist 
seer) xont ane 















fd ,o8 aheren4s 


— —— — 


A Atudtan 


“eo oe 


— vetaleed® unitate te tune ‘eae — 

of feo ef ysb ome oct nO Sanneet hee wel idem 

fotvd eno has tout ogbott ano ,bfettst .¢ om | 
-1on eeise Lenottisaes a nog 00,000, 58 en 

biow Ysxeqony od oF OLtIt oft doksiw to a reed 
Lit mt bing ane trom odd Lktmr wetton ott a: 

hart velleqan sottw yoroqonq off to teoq a exow 
wtxot toe overs otah 9 * 


ee 

and therenfter onused to be iseued ite execution srainst the 
gaid Roy P. Fifield. This exeoution expired by its own terna 
on duly 13, 1932. However, on the same date a second execution 
was issued ant therenfter on or about August 12, 105° the sheriff 
of Knox Gounty purported to make a levy uoon the enid truck and 
sedan above described under the second exeoution as above set 
forth, as and for the property of the aaid Roy *. Fifield. Thera- 
upon Charles A. Mifid#, in secordance with the statute, served a 
notice upon the sheriff of Knox Gounty, [iLinooe, notifying hin 
that he, the said Charles A. Fifield, Claimed to own the property 
go levied upon ne the property of the said Koy P. Fifield, and in 
and by the sai¢ notice he alse notified the said sheriff thet the 
property wae in the possession of the gaid Roy P. Fifield under 
leasea @xiating between he, the said Charles A. Fifield, and the 
seid Roy P. Pifield. This notice was filed in the County court 
and docketed for hearing and the eause was thereafter heard by 
the eourt without a jury, whe unon the termination of the trial 
entered judguent against the defendant (apmelient) for costs and 
ordered the property so levied woon to be released and returned 
to the said Qharles A. Fifield, appellee herein. It is from 
this jwignent thet thie appeal is proseented. 

The evidence produced upen the trial in this case 
showed that the eaid Roy P. Fifield upon his entry in bse 
iness had not only been losned money by hie brother, Charles 
A, Fifield, tut thet the brother had algo endorsed certain 
notes for him at the Yiret Galesburg National Bank. 

Thet on Jumuary 15th, above indicated, the said Roy P. 
Fifield had been unable to pay the inéebtedness to hie brether 
and he executed «a bill of anle conveying all eof the eaid pro- 
perty therein desoribed to his brother, the appellee herein. 










od? forioge moldvoene ef} Fenn £ ad oe —* — ; 
antot em att yd bantgae moktememe. w.te!'t obtoanet alt oh 
nottiroers fosen « oteh.axee od? eo. aewewol. ..REOL Poa 
Vhivode edd CROC ar tana dire, ee. am matinnsadts * ve 





sxe — ould mh DeLee eae —* eat whee 
feted act to noltanioned odd non — i 
hes atgoe ret (deat lequm) tombae'ton uti temtnge t 
hormuntes bas bonestan ad er noe bares: oni wr 





— 


oe 


That woen such oonveynnee being made the anpellee then rent te 


the bank and paid off the note wen which he wen liable but 
which was the note of Yoy P.Pifield and not of the armvellee 
herein. 

That woon the same date he sold te his brother the truck 
and gar above described upon * conditional sales oontract and 
thereafter some time in July of the anme yeor the gaid Roy P. 
Fifield hoving feitled to make the naynente provided by the 
aaid sontract, the maid Cherries A. FIfi#ld repossessed the 
gaid care ant esch of then. 

Thereafter, the tro brothers entered inte written agree 
mente by which the anid appellee allowed his brother to use 
the gaid automobiles for = weekly rentel under the terms end 
conditions of sritten leases introduced in evidence. While 
these leases were in foree the levy herein set forth wan made. 

The evidence in this case is clear and explicit and there 
ie not the slightest teatineny of any sort contradieltng or 
tending to controvert any of the testinony of the anpellee and 
unter such etate of facta it would seem thet there could be 
tut one decision to be ande, 

It ie areued by the appellant thet the entire transg- 
aotion merely amounted to a chenging around of the property 
in cuestion an‘ thet the decling between the two brothers is 
calevleted to create o suspicion end wae, in fact, a fraud 
with a view of undertaking to protect the preverty of the 
anid Roy P. Mifield. 

Tt is not true that dealings betreen relatives are nece 
essarily of a suspicious character any more so then dealings 
between other persons, Garrett ve Garrett 343 Ill. 577; Luthy 
& Go. va Paradia 299 Ill. 380; Ayers Nat. Bank va Merber 787 
T11. 182, but even if it oould be eaid that dealings between 





















— * 


et onoste ones brent a ‘saben 8 


— J ee — dunn 4 hp vote * 
5* — need ten ‘coal —— wonton ‘ont we | 
ener ot ‘eodéeed etd heeette eotteagn “Veg eae 





bs meet edt sohmw fatsox yfisew 9 ot | 
‘tity “Leonehive at pronbontat nomnst am ttbce 


*Y shee ane décot ‘hea a avenet wer ent nowt J 
oxodt | haa ‘tobteom fins —— — nase * 


he ‘saiheate ode Yo — aitt +8 


ed twee 5 nett teatt oes Ld i's 
nnerived ogtttome art 


‘weseaore _ * 


ott 40 —— one 4 


J Sal Te — Tp ty 


a 
HAE 


aget toes ‘mode * * oto 
J —J ert ‘tee dence 
¥en rodent ‘ey Snail sd 
— onto wt eyo 





ne 











| 
‘ 
j 
; 
- 
J 





4 


brothers sight ereate » suspicion, certainly the evidence in 


this case renover 211 question on thia point. 

The evidence ia sabaolutéy uncontradicted an# fully digs 
Closes the entire transaction between the brothers ant showe 
that the said appellee herein not only helwed hia brother in 
his business and loaned hiw money but even endorsed a note for 
him at the bank in the maa of $2,000.00 and efterrard nakd the 
game. If dealings between brothers crented n suepicion (end 
we do not ao hold) it would be entirely removed by the teationny 
herein. 

It is again oontended on behalf of appellant thet it was 
necessary for the conditional sales contreet bo be acknowledmred 
and reeorded in order to have a superior lien over the exeeution 
af the avvellant. This vosition is incorrect. It is provided 
in the Uniforn Seles Agt of this State that "where there is 
a contract to sell specifie goode, the seller may by the 
terns of the oontrect reserve the right of posseasion of pro— 
perty in the goods until the conditions therein desert bed 
have been fulfilled." To substantially the seme effect are 
the cares of Motor Acceptance, Ine., ve Newton 262 Ill. App. 
335; Stendard Motore Seeurities Corporetion ve Yates 257 Ti. 
Appe 394; Sherer-Gtilett Go. ve Long 318 Til. 43%. 

On April 13th, 1933 the a:peliant herein filed its 
motion for leave to file additionaleitations of mithority 


in suppert of ite position, This motion wae allowed and the 
 eitatione filed. ‘e have carefully exaswined such ad@itional 
eitations ant have considered then in sonnestion with this 
ease. 


There a®e other onestions raieed by the anvellent 


herein but in view of our deeision it ia whokly unnesennrry 


ee 


—— 







pirat Ly, 


A ae Tb aay yy ——— Sa aay AR La lle 


Rt .aremhive * ee vii s site ‘a. 


* * an 


— — * 


hes) — * — — conte sper ’ 


—— mane a i 






ae —— 


Ua ts, - 


at none — * tosh otnee, nite bey —* 


wT —XX nine ost —— 
* ffi 80 mila — 










rh apatite Ae 


at th Site? Goa Wate cae dik 






















Seite ab maar RA 
—— a 


— — Se, ——— * wt ta ond th 
hee) aobetese » betas — x 
were Delt 





ive soir oy —* — — — nll wie * 
ps hick } Bele iba ike ee ioral a ates. Oe baka) a hater amie 
Render oh at une mad se —— pith 





mene * 
oT 
ies —* eo meg thers * — 

—— Tey, ae) 
Lit TEA weet ww ans Pe neon patie : 
ES GOR ee 
wit Beka ceed Sykes is im 
hyena 36, eet go 
ae bot Her a pow meus ae Re ae 
Fgncds thie tikes Sigal et Skea a * —9 Cad, 


ae | 


whet atten eh Eines a paieeey Se, a 
“den tionein Mae, a) —— — ee ten 
feels ah dain ution ie ae neta a te. , ah ‘i 


Tia hie ah 


STATE OF ILLINOIS, 
SS 


SECOND DISTRICT I, JUSTUS L. JOHNSON, Clerk of the Appellate Court, in and 
for said Second District of the State of Illinois, and the keeper of the Records and Seal thereof, do hereby 
certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the opinion of the said Appellate Court in the above entitled cause, 
of record in my office. : 


In Testimony Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of said 


Appellate Court, at Ottawa, this day of 





in the year of our Lord one thousand nine 








hundred and thirty- 








Clerk of the Appellate Court 
(65027—1M—9-31) <<3307 


4 
‘ 
i 
! 

i { 

tp his 
‘1 Wee 

' 
< he J) 
a i 
i 
é 
£7 
a . 

‘ 4 

= : 
" 

1 
i 
— 


eo fe 


bin wy frond siel! KIA Sh 3a wat 0 HOnUROL vat arent 4 yi ge Reis a 
— 


9 
= | 


ioe Yo ‘Vane okt iin Sita Loon wit — — — J— 
NOR a cat aie — Lait quit de rinse aiallaighs | 


Aum Da sacl one brink ro. 1G ‘089 ite Blass * eerie aan 








- Mya 0 2 pind ieee 09 





General No. 8661 Uetolir Liw. ! 739. Agenda No. 6 


E. Frank Post, Plaintiff-In-Error, 
Vs. 


The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant-in-Hrror. 


Error from Macon. 6) 7 () T 


NIEHAUS, J. 

E. Frank Post, the plaintiff in error, was convicted 
in the Circuit Court of Macon County on an indictment 
charging him with buying stolen property knowing that 
the same was stolen; and by the judgment of the Court, 
was sentenced to pay a fine of $50.00 and costs; and to 
imprisonment on the Illinois State Farm for a period 
of 90 days. A writ of error is prosecuted for reversal 
of the judgment. 

The facts and circumstances concerning the pur- 
chase of the stolen property by the plaintiff in error are 
stated in the brief filed on behalf of the defendant in 
error, as follows: 

‘Plaintiff in error, HE. Frank Post bought a toilet 
stool and toilet tank complete on an evening along about 
the middle of October, A. D. 1931, from one Lester 
Bundy, a nineteen year old boy, with whom the plaintiff 
in error had been acquainted for about three years, and 
who frequented the restaurant owned by the plaintiff in 
error. Bundy brought the toilet outfit, concealed in a 
burlap sack, after dark, to plaintiff in error’s restaurant. 
Plaintiff in error went outside the restaurant and was 
there shown the toilet outfit in the burlap sack. The 
transaction took place outside the restaurant, and after 
plaintiff in error had agreed to buy the toilet outfit he 
had Bundy take the toilet outfit to his home where it 
was locked up in his garage, and there remained until 
recovered by the police officers during the latter part of 
December, 1931.’’ 

The plaintiff in error was a witness in his own be- 
half on the trial and testified in reference to his pur- 


chase of the stolen property, as follows: 


Page 1 











f ‘ 


oR ¢ 3) : i. J [0% — ‘3 : sigoal 5 — 


BBN Bh » uaa eH 


oil yy 


d sao * adh —* Ebates py sort A 
tt pide otto vith Ole ioe solos eh 9 








‘*T live in Decatur and have been in the restaurant 
business for 20 years. I am married; had occasion to 
talk to Mr. Bundy about the outfit that has been intro- 
duced in evidence. It was middle or fore part of Oc- 
tober; and was along about dark or a little after dark; 
the lights were on. Had not been personally acquainted 
with him before that time. Knew who he was when I 
seen him is all, speaking to him, he was in and out of the 
place. He came up here and called me out of the build- 
ing and wanted to know if I would buy a toilet outfit. I 
said I did if I could buy it right. I looked at the stool 
and I said, ‘‘what do you want for it.’’ He said, ‘‘it 
ought to be worth ten or twelve dollars.’’ I said ‘‘it 
wouldn’t be to me,’’ ‘‘I will give you $8.00 for it, if you 
want to take it down to my house.’’ That was all the 
conversation I had with him. The first thing I asked him 


was ‘ 


where did you get it’’ and he said, ‘‘I have been 
helping a man wreck a building at Jasper or Wood or 
something like that, and he gave me that for my part of 
the work.’’ 

The plaintiff in error after making his statement 
about the circumstances of the purchase, was asked the 
following questions by his counsel to which objections 
were sustained: 


““(). At that time did you have occasion to use a 
stool of this kind? 


Q. State whether or not you had any reason or 
purpose for wanting to buy it? 


Q. State what you expected to do with this if you 
bought it? 

Q. You may state if you had any purpose in buy- 
ing it? 

Q. You may state if you had any place where you 
desired to put this? 


Q. Now when you bought this, did you have any 
definite use in mind for this plumbing outfit? 


In reference to the last question, counsel for plain- 
tiff in error suggested to the Court that it might be an- 
swered yes or no, and thereupon the Court ruled, that 
he might answer; and the plaintiff in error answered: 


’? Then he was asked the following question: 


““YVes sir. 
‘‘You may state what that use was.’’ 
To which an objection was sustained. 
The foregoing questions were obviously put to the 
witness 


Page 2 


tig ka atye lle — 53 Tae ee) — 
ii eae 9 Aa 
i —— agit bul vad sitio ie — ‘en aM % 






cH re 





















bin fie any — Haan vi a poy r anil at 
tid bolas T Cll ter Raat ; sate Asie bak wr 
ina ae, bee fils nial precy Hor seule a | 
Hitino sahil, wi balay — Hest | 

i ret ed toa J—— — 

re —— 


to elicit from him the purpose and intention which 
were in his mind, in buying the property referred to. 
The intent and motive of the plaintiff in error in buy- 
ing the property are competent and material matters of 
evidence to be considered by the jury in the determi- 
nation of the question of guilty knowledge on the part 
of the plaintiff in error concerning property stolen. He 
should have been allowed to answer the questions as 
proper evidence for the consideration of the jury. Wohl- 
ford vs. People, 148 Ill. 296. People vs. Spranger, 314 
Til. 602. 

To sustain a conviction for receiving stolen prop- 
erty, facts and circumstances must be proved sufficient 
to create in the mind of the accused the belief that the 
property was stolen. People vs. Kohn, 290 Ill. 410; 
People vs. Wagner, 333 Ill. 603. 

Another error assigned, concerns the rulings of the 
Court in sustaining objections to certain questions pro- 
pounded by plaintiff in error’s counsel to show the plain- 
tiff in error’s general reputation as a law abiding citizen 
in the neighborhood or community where he resided. 
One of the witnesses for this purpose was J. 8. McClel- 
land, who testified that he was then in the insurance and 
real estate business in Decatur; and had been for 4 
years past; and before that, he had been in the whole- 
sale grocery business for about 33 years; that he was 
acquainted with the plaintiff in error; and had known 
him 10 or 15 years; that his acquaintance with him was 
of a business nature; and as long as he had been in busi- 
ness; and that he had done business with him at his place 
of business and at his own. Thereupon this question 
was asked the witness: 

‘Did you become acquainted with the defendant’s 
general reputation in the community where he resides 
and among those people with whom he associates, as 
being a law abiding citizen prior to October 1, 1931?”’ 

A general objection was made to the question which 
the Court sustained. 

Another witness called was J. A. Zimmer who testi- 
fied, that he had been with the National Cash Register 
Co. for 29 years; and had resided in Decatur for 18 
years; that he had known the 


Page 3 





wy if bebe hag ny ails sated we bidet ih ; 


Yo. e wy Pais Geb hat Satay eon, on — walt 9p . 


| epee tesla sativivooy 401 — —— 


‘tt ! 40 aa ails wl — — talons ren — ey 


aéiny cenit: dive a —— suited 


i esa ob oe 













Vig es — ui ——— ‘ont hi eit: ba “gtr ol 


4trv9t9b adi ai ‘yeas, ik el burebiemos ad, oh donbbive.- 
ire, elt 0 sghelwronk —— fe nolieouy salt to. di ere a) 
hE) unalode: ws —— ——— rorya a Pate yale 0 | M, 

ef qaokiuouy ast seeqie: Ot bowolla. aad one: bhuoala 
— ater, att to aoitarobiacas ait 40% sauna ii vom ; 
Bi ge 27 — J a came ak Beet . 





tain i) hoe a th a — J—— anil 










| ida eT ig a 9 J wi i 
eoNsti9 goibide wal b Buh noltalgo incon — 
J— od ate Ginomined at ent 
tof dol 54 — aa vot — 







Aauil need bait otf we * ba ‘ — aye 


td 







Ne rent t — ot cane ait — 
— — oink: ost anaes 9 J 


+ | fe 


8 





plaintiff in error 15 years in a business way. Thereupon 
substantially the same question was put to the witness 
concerning the general reputation of the plaintiff in 
error; but on objection, the witness was not allowed to 
answer. 

Another witness called concerning the same matter 
was Lamont Fisher. He testified, that he had been in 
the lumber business in Decatur for 25 years, about 6 or 
8 blocks south of plaintiff in error’s place of business; 
had known him for 15 or 20 years in a business way and 
in the neighborhood where he resided; and was acquaint- 
ed with the neighborhood where plaintiff in error re- 
sided. Thereupon substantially the same question was 
asked the witness concerning the general reputation of 
the plaintiff in error in the community where he resided; 
and among those with whom he associated, as to his 
being a law abiding citizen prior to October 1, 1931; but 
an objection was sustained to it and the evidence was 
not admitted. 

A number of other witnesses residing in Decatur and 
doing business there, were called to testify concerning 
the general reputation of the plaintiff in error as a law 
abiding citizen; but on the objection of the defendant in 
error, the evidence was not admitted by the trial court. 
The record discloses, that in nearly every instance the 
preliminary proof was sufficient as a proper foundation 
for the introduction and admission of the evidence re- 
ferred to; and we are of opinion therefore, that in its 
rulings, in sustaining objections to its introduction, the 
trial court was in error. It is well settled, that in cases 
of this character where proof of guilty knowledge is a 
necessary element in constituting the crime, proof of the 
good character of the accused is competent evidence. 
Jupitz vs. People, 34 Ill. 516; People vs. Koloski, 309 
Ill. 468; Brown vs. Leuhrs, 1 Ill. App. 74; Peters vs. 
Bornean, 22 Ill. App. 117. 

For the errors indicated, the judgment is reversed 


and the cause remanded. 


Page 4 





o 


 soobiva, dopdaqiieg ai gain malt Ww cl 





Daa Wiha 


bit oe —* ——— — ariel gale — ipl: i 
on air baa — il — —— 










* —— ‘we — oth aainisoae —— F bolas ie 
ih — ack orolu — od ot bik bin th —— 









Jarod! aid oils BAL! pate Jout ane 
gal minatent yote Abo: \i sa 
Koishatet yaqoug 8 xe ht 
— iscsi iy ail} to coli, fu, 


aokos mi farts pees low. Ki? a, aon ab pay 
8 ai ‘oabolwondl tiling: to Hoong, aveulye rotnntade — 
gilt 40 oot oaity ot J—— nk i 















Me seolgat AY alqou ; 218 nt HEY fi 
Av uot se ise a} ie — ae 





GENERAL NO, 8665 


GEORGE A. RAFFSTY, Administrator 
of the estate of ROBERT L. 
CUNNINGHAM, Deceased, 


Plaintiff in Srror, 


ee ae 8 @8 os 


Lrror to 


8* 


Gireuit Court 


7 VSe 
Greens County. 


+ eh Bh oe 


JOHN M. GOEBELT, 


Defendant in “rror. 


oo 


270 1.4. 689) 


ELDREDGE, P. J. 

This cause originated in the County Court of Greene 
County by the filing of a cisim by defendant in error, John_ii. 
Goebelt, in the estate of Robert L. Gunningham, deceased, of 
which plaintiff in error is administrator. The claim is based 
upon a note for the principle sum of 95,495.90 executed by Fred 
Cunningham and later by his father Nobert L. Gumningham on which 
it was claimed that there was an unpaid balance due for $5,093.61. 
On @ hearing in the County court the claim was allowed in the 
amount of $3,150.50.  n appeal was taken to the Circuit Court 
where a jury was waived and the trial had before the Court and 
judgment was entered for claimant for $5,737.06 which included 
interest on the note to the date of the juli gnent. 


The note is as follows:- 


















a ee 





a Re eee we de et ee 


















































2 o jfosesoes yamigatoango — tredgat te 
i ‘peesd of miaio eat as : 

beet qo heeeoene 00,008,06to eam Slghoat 
dott ae magntom .t tuadol 
haw teed emt excted tad totar edd Sam beeen 


‘3 Ae eters : ae — 





* = 








"$5495.90 June 1, 1925. 


Five years after date for value received I promise to pay 
to the order of John M. Goebelt Tifty-Your Hundred Ninety-five 
and 90/100 Dollars at the “armers State Bank of Greenfield, 
Illinois, with interest at 7 per cent per annum after date until 
paid. Payments made at any time to stop interest on the payments. 


4nd to secure the payment of said amount I hereby authorize, 
irrevocably, any attorney of any Court of Record to appear for 
me in such Court, in term time or vacation, at any time and con- 
fess a judgment without process in favor of the holder of this note, 
for such amount as may appear to be umpaid thereon, together with 
costs and 549.00 dollars attorneys fees, and to waive and release 
all errors which may intervene in any such proceeding, and consent 
to immediate execution upon said judgement, hereby ratifying and 
confirming all that my said attorney may do by virtues hereof. 
Interest payable semi-amnuaily. 


Fred L. Cunningham 
Re Le. Cunningham.” 


it was endorsed on the back as follows:- "In considera- 
‘tion of the signing of this note as surety by 2. L. Gunninghan, 
the payee J. M. Goebelt hereby agrees never to attempt collection 
in any way of this obligation during the lifetime of the surety, 
the said i. L. Cunningham. 


Je H. Goebelt. 


197.36 Interest paid to Dec. 1, 1923. 
1924, April 2=--by inventory of stock 52,917.11 
Interest paid to 4/2 1924 
Principal due $2575.79." 


On June 1, 1923 defendant in error ran a combination 
store and restaurant in the City of Greenfield, Illincis. He 
was the son-in-law of Robert L. Cunningham, deceased, and also a 
brother-in-law of ‘red Oumningham. He sold the store and res~- 
taurant on that date to fred Cunningham who executed the note 
in question as payment therefor. Fred Cunningham took possession 
thereof and operated the business for ebout eleven months, when, 
on March 30, he abandoned the business, left the town and wrote 


to defendant in error in substance that he had made a failure of 



















wSRVL at aruis hades SEC AEG War DA ee ee emacs: 


wy o¢ cutmosg I bovicses elev wot ofab t]ettes eracy vil _ wes 
se S=cieait Serbeell teoleystl Pfedeoo? .M mdetl To. — ix 
lettaset? to see si sd0 evemal ed? to exoliel OOL\e 
ittay efab cefie mune w¢ ¢n00 walt ys ts —— — 
savaenyag Ody no dsexetat gota ot ts ahem ot 


-seizodtes ydewd I tayome bias to sree ewees of 

- "6% aseqge of Bross! te sewed % — ati 

see Ban eal? yas 24 ent we 

dod ant eidt te i9bied odd to — 

- #2 iwusdtepet. veces f, 

easeles bm mre og ———— 
Srtanes bas 3. 


———— — neo 
— ues, —* — 


— ot bent 5 ara 
— —— 


—— ore ——— Aoa use 
— Lee — — — 


———— * a 


the business and for defendant in error to take it and do the 

best he could with it. Defendant in error appointed some appraisors 
to make an inventory of the stock which was left in the store and 
credited the note with the amount thereof, aiso with $75.91 cash 
left in the store and paid accounts left unpaid of 3509.14, leaving 
a balance due on the note of $2,578.79. The note in question had 
been left by defendant in error for safekeeping in the first National 
Bank of Greenfield. chortly after fred Cumningham had abandoned 
the store and left Greenfield, tobert L. Cunningham went to the 
Bank and asked if a note had been left there of fred Cunningham 
payable to defendant in error and stated he wanted to sign it, 

that *red had run away and he felt that he had not done right, and, 
according to the testimony of the cashier of the Bank, he would not 
Sign the note until he knew that the endorsement was on the note, 
The cashier of the Bank testified that at the time he signed the 
note Robert L. Cunningham ikmew and understood perfectly what he 

was doing and knew of the endorsement upon the note. 

It is claimed by plaintiff in error that Robert L. 
Cunningham on account of his advanced age and ill health was not 
mentally competent to transact business, also that defendamt in 
error threatened te have Fred Cunninghem arrested and placed in 


-3- 


edd ob Sus 22 alat of sore oe —— sO baw es 













Hea | ont ont at Fa ao dette state eat 38 


tesokseot Jacki sav nd — ‘tot — 
Heaobusds ——— beet wefta uses t⸗ruoere⸗ © 
out ot so9w + ga i —“ 


* core 
M4 sat tenons Doobie Bae weas maori 4 is 


foc sow nd au Be ge nani st 0 Sama 


* te — lest — 


ok hooeks Sam Saison andgaiant® Best ered of 3 
: — SM RL | — ze, . 








jail unless the note was paid and that such threats, owing to the 
enfeebled mental condition of Robert L. Cunningham, amounted to 
duress. The evidence is conflicting and as the trial was before 
the Court without a jury full faith and credit must be given to the 
findings of the Court on all questions of fact unless it is mani-~ 
festly against the weight of the evidence, ‘The evidence in this 
ease is sufficient te sustain the trial court in its finding on 

the facts and consequently we would sot be justified in reversing 
the judgment upon that ground. No propositions of law were offered 
by plaintiff in error and consequently mo question of law were 
preserved in the record for our determination. In the case of 


Swain vs. First National Sank, 201 Ill. 416 it was held:=- “where 
there is a trial before the court without a jury, in order to 
present a question of law te this cout the party should submit 
propositions of law to the trial cowt, as provided for in section 
41 of the Practice act. (First Nat. Bank of Michigan City v. 
Haskell, 124 111, 587; Northwesterm Mutual Aid sss. v. Hall, 118 
id. 169}. As no propositions of law were submitted on the trial 
below, no question of law arises here upon the recordé; and all the 
ouestions of fact are settled by the judgment of the Appellate 
Soust." To the same effect are Mutual Pre. League vs. MeKee, 225 — 


Tll. 364; Jacobson vs. Liverpool, ete. Ins. Cos, 231 Ili. 61; 
Wight vs. Chicago, 234 111. 85; Knox Engineering Co. vs. R.1.5. 
Ry. Co., 264 Ill. 198; Overland Motor Co. vs. Tennant, 195 Ill. 


Appe Ss 


The judgement of the Circuit Court is affirmed. 


<4 


berets éxon wal a qen¥e rrorens oe Sano, ot. no - 


> eaedtwr ~)bied new #h 




















ze 


at at Dembve at — ois 20 Pate ol 
mo gasiett ets at woo Leiee edt atstaee of 


Sabeneves ok DeaRIHeM 06 ox: how: 


eta est to montana os ꝙſoruee Dan met ab | 


te sane ‘sit at ⸗eriemiet suo gh 


of ushas af — a Oa ot 108 mos — noted 
tiasinsy Divota ytaeq edt terns etd —— 
astes tok ———— aside —— 
*⏑— 

— sv mes. ag 
Ledad. eds oe bod 
oa3 Lis bas pbxoce: © 

etallogys. eds to #, 
— —— at — 


(Ly AS 
/ 5 , oe 
oe 
— — 
as » 6: 
GENERAL NO. 8732 JANUARY TERM, A.D.1933 AGENDA NO. 13 
LOUISE BROWN, 
Defendant in Error, 
vs. Error to 


Circuit Court 


ROBERT BROWN, Clark County. 


Plaintiff in Error, 


ELDREDGE, P.J. 


Louise Brown, defendant in error, filed her bill in 
the Circuit Court of Clark County against her husband Robert 
Brown, plaintiff in error, for separate maintenance. Plaintiff 
in error filed his cross bill in said cause for divorce. The 
Court granted a decree in favor of defendant in error upon her 
bill for separate maintenance and ordered, "That the defendant, 
Robert Brown, be denied the relief prayed for in his cross bill 
for divorce." No further order was made in regard to the cross 
bill. Sec. 2, Chap. 68, Rev. Stat. provides that a suit for 
separate maintenance must be instituted in the County where the 
husband resides, and this limitation appears to be jurisdic- 
tional. Bleckenberg vs. Bleckenberg, 232 111. 120; Plotnisky 
vs. Plotnisky, 241 Ill. App. 166; Bayer vs. Bayer, 254 Ill. App. 
323; Briney vs. Briney, 223 Ill. App. 119. There is no averment 


in the original bill as to the residence of plaintiff in error, 


270 1.A. 6397 


— 
ode pas ‘Sonrever a — ——— 





—— ows \ 
QO hots «- 
* * /7 j = ~ é 


£U =X : i. 
oF 3 — — = i: fe ———— ⸗ 4 


General Number 8706 





CLINTON P. HEADLEY, 
Plaintiff in “rror, 


“error to the 


Ve Cireuit Court of 


PRANK S, SCOTT and C. F. SCOTT, 
Defendants in “rror. 


Greene County. 


—— — —— 


270 pees 639° 


Shurtleff, J: 


This is an action brought by plaintiff in error against de- = 
fendant in error in trespass on the case for injuries suffered by 
plaintiff in error in an automobile accident, in which plaintiff in 
error claims to have been struck by defendant in error‘ts car, The 
accident in question occurred on Lindell boulevard, a public thor- 
oughfare of the City of St. Louis and State of Missouri, at about 
midnight on December 27, 1927, or a few moments thereafter, on the 
morning on the 28th. The declaration is in five counts, the first 
of which charged that defendant is error was driving his car on the 
left hand side of the street. In the second count of the declara- 
tion plaintiff in error sets out a law of the State of Missouri as 
follows: "fvery person operating a motor vehicle on the highways 
of this state shall Grive the same in a careful and prudent manner, 
and shall exercise the highest degree of care, and at a rate of 
speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or 
limb of any person, provided that a rate of speed in excess of 
twenty-five miles an hour for a distanee of one-half mile shali be 
considered as evidences, presumptive, but not conclusive of driving 
at a rate of speed which is not careful and prudent, but the burden 
of proof shall continue to be on the prosecution to show by competent 
evidence that at the time and place charged the operator was driving 























, y 
“4! 
4 
F 
= 
: 
a Pee bs Lage cure f 
———— > hem — 
Ris 
9 — J 
ar Sr = orgs 
a » Bas ney: SS ee ee eine i — * — 
co Soe: 2a : | ; — ee 
Walia: * ve 
{ % 
pee had — orn. 
: Ron fe eee 
a? vs 
‘Ne — i at i 
ead £ 4 : — at 
ae OD ‘ 
aye te : q i 
A 
a 
et 
9 ay 
ey * ry 


— — sacs € téene oe eh ren the ye nigh oa nettoe owe 
— ws Se ke, iE ot eee oF ise — 





— pce 5, al sessions aeues 
ey ite a ree J— esc aa 
stacis ,pivewe 20 ‘45 ees@e: Grea shoot: we to — 
eat’ a a — ected ada 260 at" * — eer. hil * cine: é 
anh ait om 2 wwEE ok af woltaqedeal: ee see | 
oe e ee nit garish ger ‘worse #2 dasbaenos ⸗ ete * 
~icaiowd : outs “he: ane ies ead a stooade. ‘ “ed te 
es ——— iia to's ade oe te ‘wal a. — aon. rose 
ryaw, — wad’ ge ‘efoster woban a: ‘gattexee noanog: 
aaa Faadiwy hit tones 8 sich “Se eas Se 
iW Gers 84 bed omad We nenged Peedyhd ot 
nO O2RL als to todtong te: vimabes di E 






at a rate of speed which was not careful and prudent, considering 
the time of day, the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, 
condition of the highway and the location with reference to inter- 
secting highways, curves, residences or schools," 

The third cout charges that defendant in error failed to 
sound his horn or to give any other warning of his approach, and 
the fourth count charges defendant in error with negligence in 
failing to slacken, swerve or stop his car, although he could,in 
the exercise of ordinary care, have done so without injury to him- 
self or the occupants of the car so as to avoid striking the appel- 
lant, and with negligently failing to have his car under such con= 
trol so that he could, in the exereise of such ordinary care, have 
Slackened, swerved or stopped the same so as to avoid the accident. 

The fifth count sets up the ordinance of the City of St. 
Louis then in force and effect preseribing, among other things, 
that the driver of an automobile shall keep his car as near as may 
be reasonably possible to the right curb of the street upon which 
he is driving, and charges negligence against the appellee in failing 
to keep his car upon the right side of Lindell boulevard. 

There was a verdict and judgment for defendant in error, 
and plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, has brought the record by 
writ of error to this court for review. 

Lindell Boulevard is a paved street in St. Louis, sixty feet 
in width, running in a generally easterly and westerly direction. 
The point at which the accident occurred is at the middle of a long 
block, covering two ordinary blocks. The point in question is where 
the 4600 series of house numbers begins on the boulevard. The street 
was well lighted by electric lights. On the south side of it, op- 
posite this point, is situated the building in which the Woman's 
Club of St. Louis has its headquarters, 


Deo 











‘epee — hae. fen. ton. ⸗ a 


~rotak ot —— td hie sobinped per rts = weet 
z | | * ,aloedee a0 sconod ino, borane I 
ot hoits? worse. ok Sane eh dat aeytade tase 2 2 





* i anit Atle pore ss. ——— ey é 
GE BLOO Bh Qed Lp, Se aie oom Ze. PEE. 
“mia of INiat swoddlw 92 enob ovad WEBS. eantice 
<i slagon ait gatliate Signe of. an 9& 280 om, To. © Mant, 


ered .2tR9 ) yeastbae J * ——— out at, 





pi 20, eh, ot 30 — —— ate Me: Bae, 
— nadie fy OTS ead semen as oD ad 
— fe yam. 89 3Pen Se see a tai Leda odtsoe a a 
OF folate segu oorse af Be ans; —— ot. A 
gcitie? of asileggs < edt Jentene compat igen eegande | 


———— ifvhubt 7 =P tat —* * 


stmebipgs edt Deore. OF 22 OR ome, ct Ma ac 















tk 
; 

7 
= 
_ 
>. 
= 
7 





te hxooss ons digeoud eas ew —— — 
EU ihe ere me wosres 9, fumectt. oe 

> eet. — ,eival #6, at texte beveg » et eu 

- costocr 2 yleetsow das ~inetans 









‘teenta edt. — ate ay. pant J 
=Go tt ———— — get. —— 


On the night in question plaintiff in error and his wife had 
attended an entertainment at the Yoman's Club and Plaintiff in srror had 
erossed the street after the entertaimment was over to procure an 
umbrella and shawl or wrap for his wife from his car, which was 
parked on the north side of the steet. After securiag these things 
he walked into the street, passed the line of parked automobiles and 
stopped to observe the traffic. From this point, he testified, he 
could see about two hundred feet in both directions. The night was 
rainy, there being a fine drizzle or light rain falling. Plaixtiff 
in error after waiting for one car to pass,and seeing no others 
close to him, began walking across the street. 

Plaintiff in error testified that as he went across the 
street he was looking both ways; that he was looking east; that you 
cannot confine your looks to one direction; that he had to look te 
the east and west until he thought the traffic was such that he could 
get across the street, and that he kept on looking. He testified 
that the first he observed the car approaching was the reflection of 
the head lights from the pavement and that he saw that fran ander 
the umbrella. He also testified that he did not know whether he had 
the umbrella up or not, that he was not quite sure that the reason 
he did not see the car was because he had the umbrella down over his 
head. The evidence also showed that the plaintiff in error was 
wearing a dark overcoat, and both defendant in error and his caz- 
panion, J. C. Davis, testified that plaintiff in error had the um- 
brella open and down close to his head. Defendant in error also 
testified that the only thing that he could sce was the black wabrella 
and the black overcoat. It is true that the plaintiff in error tes= 
tified he was carrying a shawl on his arm, but he did not testify 
that it was on an arm where it could be seen by the driver of the 
ear nor whether it was hidden from the driver by his body and by his 
umbrella, and therefore the Court subsequently excluded the evidence 


as to the shawl because it was irrelevant. 


=3= 


hae es Oi Somsetus — J —— att eat sine ‘soon « 
ot bor! aot 5 eet Wile — — 
$a digit ext? | anoitwor se ‘ated at i det — — — 


—— best “ge wee “od ‘1st ome — ‘oi 
cS Sit ari scant edt eink son Ed ot suite — 
Boao ee = 
abd vero ree atioscw odd bad a re ie 
ail ‘gore it vei otety only "sad bia 44 





Plaintiff in error testified that when he was five or six 
feet south of the center line of the Boulevard he saw defendant's 
automobile approaching, but the weight of the evidence is against 
him in this regard because his own witness, Judge M. R. Stahl, tes- 
tified that Mr, Headley after the accident was lying four or five 
feet north of the center of the street, and that he had been throw 
straight forward to the west, while the defendant in error and his 
companion both testified that Headley was six or seven feet north of 
the center of the street when he was struck, and that at no time did 
defendant in error drive on the south side of the street in that 
block, and that they were driving about six feet out from the parked 
ears along the curb, That Headley, after he was struck, was throm 
toward the left or south. 

The evidence also showed, as stated by plaintiff in error, 
that it was the left front fender of the car that struck him. The 
evidence showed that defendant in error stopped the car within 
twenty or twenty-five feet of the point of the accident and then 
drove to the curb and went back and picked up plaintiff in error, 
fhe evidence also Giowed that plaintiff in error came out of the 
darkness into the light in front of defendant in error's car at 4 
run or trot. The evidence also showed that defendant in error was, 
following directly behind another car, and according to plaintiff 
in error’s own statement he waited until he saw a car pass and then 
started across, 

Plaintiff in error does not claim that the verdict in the 
ease at bar was against the manifest weight of the testimony and 
could not well assign such error upon the preofs, as we heave read 
then. 

Plaintiff in error does assign error upon the Court giving 
defendant in error's instructions 23 te 135, inclusive, as follows: 


24. The Court instructs the jury that if you believe from 


aha 







ate me ovis one en ab tin sie dak ‘pertivees 
44 — — woe on irevatuot ‘ont “Se onkd * * * 
tanlege a) eenaiive at to ‘tite | ous tat 2 
















* — Rice 


“Sei ao mae —* antes aaw imebtves, “a rs ) | 
weenie reed “bad od — bie sdsoute ont ‘to “netne eat 
wha ‘as wire ad dantaetted ext elise — — % 
to aga soot eres te alk 6a J— tut — 

ote mt outs ome te ob te ‘ites ‘act * 
oe ‘ent mix? tuo test ste ‘tuode gatvind — a 
mrosdt aum sere sow tod — 3 —— 


me — ‘ahs 








ee “bai “pais 
Pe ae Shs ‘dowzde fead ven edt * — — 


Sere ae 
— aoe —* 


ait io “isp este —— at watdatony —7 — 
2 1368 ⸗ ad daabicetes — nod * ists 


Sake ** —X zo e gee od aa stave on die 


—— * — 


58 
ae 


pd at ‘tostiney ext? tant nisic ‘ten we 
pate ‘prontheded ent 26 sii, om. snd bant a 


- 


baer oved “oom = — oat —“ 














the evidence that the alleged injury was accidental, and that neither 
the plaintiff nor the defendants were negligent, then you should find 
the defendants not guilty. 

5S. The law places upon all adult persons the duty of ex 
ercising reasonable care, to avoid injury to themselves, and even 
though the jury should believe from the evidence that the driver of 
the automobile was negligent, and that the plaintiff was injured, 
still, if the jury further believe from the evidence that the injury 
to plaintiff could and would have been avoided by the exercise of 
reasonable care, on his part to avoid or prevent the collision ané 
injury, and that, he, the plaintiff, did not exercise such care, 
then there could be no recovery in this case, 

4, If you believe from the evidenes that both the plaintiff 
and the defendant frank 5, Seott were guilty of negligence which 
soncurred to cause the collision and injury in question, then you 
should find the defendants not guilty. 

5. If you believe from the evidence that the plaintiff at 
the time of his injury, or immediately prior thereto, omitted to & 
for his om safety that which an ordinarily cafeful person under 
like circwastances would have done, and that in consequence of such 
omission, the plaintiff was injured, then the law is that the plain- 
tiff cannot recover. 

6. The exercise of ordinary care, for one's own safety, 
such as is required in this case, is the exercise of that care which 
every person of common prudence bestows upon kis ow affairs or ¢on=- 
cerns, and the ordinary care, which reason and law require a persa 
to exercise for his own safety must be proportionate to the danger, 
if any, and exereised with reference to the situation and position 
in which the person finds himself. 

7. ‘The Court instructs the jury with reference to tie ques- 
tion of speed that even if you believe from the evidence that at the 


















"Se wowed att deste eonebhve bie wars’ — —2 
— ees any iatatedg ost? ast = KOR 


“ff ors, eos atone et bap — * ge shaman 
ie 0800 are a. — om on so 


— Bedd — —— — — * es 
ae | Re 400 whesbmath | 
te 3 ipataty ot toss sore ive oat —_ on rk 
ae ot ‘heavime sosotedt — — ——— 2 
a ehaay soar ietetee —— * soni 
dane te sheen poms 4 goed bas e@nod. oy: 
natok * ** — are * ih 


oa was dads * — —— —— 


— 


time of the accident in question the automobile was being operated 

at a speed greater than twenty-five miles an hour, yet the burden of 
proof is still on the plaintiff to show that at the time and plece 

in question, the driver was driving at a rate cf speed which was not 
careful and prudent, considering the time of day, the amount of vehicu- 
lar and pedestrian traffic, condition of the highway and the location 
with reference to intersecting highways or residences; and also to 
prove that he himself was in the exercise of due care and caution for 
his own sefety. 

GS. If you believe that the plaintiff has failed to prove by 
the preponderance of the evidenee that the defendant C. F. Seott, at 
and before the time of the accident in question, kept and maintained 
an automobile for the general use ané pleasure of himself and family, 
and that the defendent "rank 5. Seott was then a member of the family 
of the said ¢. F. Scott, and that the said Frank S. Seott had the 
permissive use of the automobile from the said C. F. Scott, at the 
time of the accident, then the plaintiff cannot recover as against 
the seid C. F. Scott. 

$. These instructions constitute a statement of the law 
applicable to this case, and it is your duty to obey them and to 
follow the lav thus given you by the Cours. 

10. The jury are further instrusted that neither by these 
instructions, nar by any words uttered or remarks made by the Court 
during this trial, does or did the Court intimate or mean to give, 
er to be understood as giving an opinion as to what the proof is or 
what it is not, or what the facts are im this ease, or what are not 
the facts therein. It is te the jury te find ad determine the facts 
ané this you must do from the evidenee, under the law, and having dme 


so, then spoly to them the law as stated in these instructioas. The 
instruecticns given to the jury are and constitute one connected series, 


26 















fon eae tos: acy — ee dtalt 5 38 mates eae soviss oe 
“woke * Aeror ast eb * oatt ‘wild ‘gereoltanes ‘ 
——— ade oe yom a “ot we wok? Khan's oiriant 
9t osle hae jab ies * Weach e ‘qabtooeretad of 
Zot no hua, bas ex59 rr) * setoTare oar aen — vei abit 


ts toot .1 | taabawtenn ost tod — st * oe 


Wilma — sodieet 8 watt ase — — asibab rab 
eae Bal —E — dase * teat tas ‘i se 





Wie 


wa f * Sasaet ote 6 2 odut tinawe an 
of haa wa⸗ — ot dub woe i J 


aiid <a tout koa tase —J——— ——— one — 


Sl 
- — 


oak ae bres bas wat aiid — — —— Bs 
oat weeiteustent suods st esate en 


7%) aolzes Setacisoe en atut ita 








* 





* — * 





end should be so regarded and treated by the jury; that is to say, 
the jury should apply them to the facts as a whole, and not detach 
or separate any one instruction from any or either of the others. 

ll. It is not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to re- 
cover in this cass, to show a negligent breach of duty on the part 
of the defendants, but it devolves upon the plaintiff to show farther 
that such breach of duty was the proximate or immediate cause of the 
injury to the plaintiff; that in no ease can a resovery be had for 
a negligent breach of duty, umless the cvidence shows that such 
negligent breach of duty, if any, was the proximats cause of the in- 
jury occurring. 

iz. if you believe from the evidence that the alleged injury 
was accidental, and that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants 
were negligent, then you should find the defendants not guilty. 

13. The Court iastructs the jury that the burden of proof 
is not upon the defendants to show that they are not guilty of the 
acts charged against them in plaintiff's deciaration, but that the 
burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove that the defendants 
are guilty. 

We have examined all of these instructions given in connection 
with the proofs in the case, and we cannot say that they constitute 
error. 

As to instruction number seven, in Harris v. Piggly Wigely 
Stores, supra, 2t page 599, the Court, with regard to an instruc 
tiom telling the jury that exceeding the statutory specd limit 
was prima facie svidence of negligence, said: "In Stansfield 
ve Wood, 251 Til. App. 586, opinion by Mr. Justice Heard, the giving 
ef this instruction was held to be erroneous. It was also criticised 
in Johnson v. Pendergast, 308 Ill. 255, on the ground that it was 
doubtful whether the ordinary juror would understand the legal meaning 
of the term prima facie and that the instruction was equivaisnt to 















qim of at ‘vost crest nas: * befeord ‘bas Sebasinen os! 
daaton gon Dap —— BAS. wien ogy ot. set age bl 
——— shh <9 ott Le “eh we port Robi outent — 
wae ot — etd | elattne. * eter — fou — 


— ran — * ahs — —2— J — tid : 


fos ee vr, et pond 14 ‘edd exetey aie eye 8 
aah aa 22 ae stenaony out ce ste, tt Dis ws 


ae 


—— ones ihe ra 2 } eats ‘oensbive * ON — - 















edi te vi bts fon | exe 2 vedi dha eae ot — 
eat tsde tut atveneioeb’ al Vanealaty at ‘oot : 
“stmibseted one aa⸗ exer ———— ody + wos at fi 


Koltoeangs al ag tu ano Mevmtes soot ae iia vou ns 
Bt Leanoo ‘eat pasts ee teams J hod — * 


eae. * —— ——— — iv case ns 
— — images, we ate, aa 8b ag o8 
thon baie vere coe 





garry adi — — 






advising the jury that if defendant violated the Statute, neglicence 
was proved,” 


In Stanfield v. Yiood, supra, at page 591, the Court says: 





"It does not follow that because a rate of speed in miles is stated 
in the Statute to be prima facie, unreasonable and dangerous that 
such rate of speed is in fact unreasonable and dangerous in every 
case, or that a lesser rate of speed in every case is reasonable 
and not danserous," 

Instruction number twelve in this case was approved in 


Webster Mfg. Co. v. Nisbett, 87 Ill. App. 551; 553, This instruc- 





tion has never been criticised and the only similar instruction that 
has been criticised has been one where the clement that neither plain- 
tiff nor defendant were negligent had been omitted. ‘the Cowt was 
eertainly not permitted to say as a matter of law that the defendant 
was guilty of negligence. If it was ths plaintiff that was guilty 

of negligence, then the instruction could not have been prejudicial 
to plaintiff. The jury were definitely instructed that for that 
instruction to be effective it must appear that neither the plaintiff 
nor defendant were negligent, and that was certainly a correct prop- 
position of law. 

It is quite apparent that instructions 23 and 12 were dupli- 
cated, and not by fault of defendant in crror, as shown by the num- 
bering of the first. The instructions on contributory negligence 
were all on different phases of that subject. Instruction number 
three was as to the effect of contributory negligence; instruction 
number five related to the omission of care as negligence; instruc- 
tion number six defined what ordinary care was. Those three were 
the only instructions really bearing on the question of contributory 
negligence. Instruction mmber four merely stated what the effect 
was when both parties were guilty of negligence. It cannot be said 
that these instructions covered the same matter, differing only in 


verbiage. 


-6- 











eonegifgon wanted: odd — foe tmnciom 


cedes tered wi I06 spi te ails — — 
hecete el selina sired beogn o oken — teste OS 


ae — oat sod tine — —— 
——— Fem — fo. ido mw’ * * oe 
wie aay ane hic aeaoead — * — 


J——— moie ” “deat ac⸗ sects * ena tami 


— 





qtotudizénce to aortesua, ost £O sat ane —— —* eum 
toetie edd fade berets, Ylovem 20% sodaus 19. ts % al 
fies ed tions 2 ~onsoglines —2 


— 


There was no ¢rror in instruction number six. It was held 
in Dickson v. Swift Company, 258 Ill. 62, also cited by plaintiff 
in error, at page 66: “What is ordinary care depends upon the cir- 
cumstances of the particular case, as stated in the instruction. 
When the circumstances are such that an ordinarily careful and oru- 
Gent person would take greater precautions for his own safety than 


under less threatening circumstances, the greater degree of cautim 


would be ordinary care, (West Chicago St. Ry. Co. ve Manning, 170 
Till. 417.) While the circumstances in which a person is placed may 


differ and require the doing of different things for his personal 
safety, and call for effort and circumspection, proportionate to 
the known danger, the — demanded in such as a person of ordinary 
prudence would usually exercise under the same and similar circun- 
stances and is nothing but ordinary sare after all." That is the 
doctrine that was presented to the jury by the instruction in cuestion. 
No proofs having been submitted tending to show that defendant 
in error could have seen the shawl carried by plaintiff in error, it 
was not error to strike the proof as to the shawl from the record. 
Finding no error in this record warranting a reversal of this 
judgment, the verdict and judgment of Greene County Circuit Court are 


affirmed. 


APTI RMED « 


-9- 








blot-aew 7. .xde rodeue noltewwtanl af tome oo — * re 
maan tata u baile anke. a Sar — J 


General Ihmber 8727 JANUARY TORM, A, D. 1933. Agenda Number 8. 


Robert Markwell, 


at) 1A, 63o9f 


) 
Appellee, Appeal from the 
Ve “Cireuit Court of 
Marcella Dolan, Vermilion county. 
appellant —) 


Shurtleff, J: 

This is an action in tort to recover damages for personal in- 
jury and property damace which resulted from a collision of two auto- 
mobiles on a highway between Danville and Catlin in Yermilion County, 
about midnight on December 19, 1931. 

The appellee, Nobert Markwell, had been visiting in Catlin 
and on his way home was riding inhis automobile, driven by his wife, 
in a northeasterly direction, coming toward Danville. 

The appellant, Marcella Dolan, had attended a show in Danville 
and was driving a scar owned by her father in a southwesterly direction 
toward Catlin, where she lived, 

The road runs diagonally with the points of the compass from 
northeast to southwest. Traveling toward Danville, the direction is 
northeast, and traveling toward Catlin, one drives southwest. 

At a point on the highway a short distance north of Catlin 
the cars collided; that the accident occurred on a foggy night near 
midnight. 

The declaration consists of three counts, charging in the 
first general negligence. In the second the negligence charged is 


—R 









‘oe 6d. A.I-O nis Ge. 
gaE0 dived - 
— ao kbs 0 - 


alte te stron, 1 eoaetae ‘Seana B 
1908 dégia gact ® fo, beans 


driving without lights visible two hundred feet in advance, and in 
the third a failure to seasonably turn to the right of the center of 
the roadway. 

As originally begun, the suit was brought against Marcella 
Dolan, the driver, and also against her father, William Dolan, the 
owner of the car. 7 

The latter pleaded two special pleas denying the agency of the 
daughter. It being shown that she was upon an errand of her own, at | 
the close of plaintiff's evidence the trial court directed a verdict 
in his favor. The case then proceeded against Mereside, and the jury 
brought in a verdict against her for 33,350, upon which judsment was 
entered. Appellant has brought the record to this court by appeal for 
review. 

A motion for a directed verdict was made on her behalf, ac- 
companied by a proper instruction, at the clese of plaintiff's case 
and renewed at the close of all the evidence. A motion for a new 
trial was made, and exceptions were duly taken to the rulings of the 
court and the entry of judement. 

in this court the issues are that the verdict is contrary to 
the weight of the evidence; that the court should have directed 
a verdict for the defendant because of contributory negligence, and 
also that the trial court erred in giving instructions to the jury 
offered by appellee. 

The evidence in the case showed thet the Earkwells had been 
visiting in Catlin and started toward their home near Danville. Their 
Gar was an Essex Super=Six,. The direction in which they traveled was 
northeast. lkrs. Markwell was driving. ‘The fog is described as being 
very heavy at the point of collision. Vision was difficult, and at 
appellee's suggestion, his wife turned her lights from bright to dim 


=Be 














nk Sea ScRoTes az goo% —— * atdtaty —— 


— a 


—— walt to Stats ods of sust vidanoenee of * 


Atenren entaut ———— ane —— 





— ential, te smelo: ode te —— : J 
taee Aaoe tvs ont fhe Yo enon 82 
— Ne > eat is att ot sonia ai —* Léqun 


aiedt sollivass 280m mod aaady mn 
ny befovest youd ides cer wt — — 
— ———— . neve 


om dae ePLwOEVELD. —— 


=i “ 


so that they could follow the pavement. 

Markwell was the only witness for the appellee as to what 
occurred when the collision resulted. 

He says the lights on his ear were dimmed, but were burning 
when the accident happened. He also says that his car was being 
driven at ten miles an hour with the two right hand wheels on the 
gravel or cinder shoulder of the highway, and that these two wheels 
were about two and one-half or three feet beyond the right hand edge 
of the brick pavement in the direction he was going, and that his car 
was in that position at the instant of the impact. He says when he 
first saw it, the Dolan car was ten feet away. 

The Dolan car was a Buick sedan and there were three persons 
in it, all on the front seat. They were traveling about twenty miles 
an hour. 

Several heavy pockets of fog were encountered, and they found 
thet they could better follow the road without lights, and accord- 
ingly, when this last heavy fog Was encountered, Marcella switched 
off the lights and had traveled a short interval, which she describes 
asabout two minutes, in that way, when the collision occurred, The 
Markwell car was visible only a few feet away. 

The persons in the Dolan car were Marcella, sitting behind 
the wheel, on the left; the mother sat on the right with the window 
partly down and watehed the edge of the pavement on the right hand 
side in the direction they were traveling, southwest, and in the 
middle of the seat sat Miss Lucy Rohour. 

4s to the accident, appellee testified: "I opened the window 
because it was hot in the car, and my wife opened hers. It was hot 
on the 19th of December. It was wam in the car andi lowered my 
window and she lowered hers. 


-S= 







|  Jygms 08% gad eaw ee ; ater * * 
— a Aen ened bas sabes. sob a aoe 8 fn é 
“patie tons duods aatlov ant orew — oe 


bq) “RESRE cetsey Mis —— Brena se ‘= —— — 


* 








ante xeu ane _berosawonsis ‘ong aot * * —E ve 
; vro⸗ 98 — — ——— wort — gar worse 





wabs lw mE J * 
tori —E od — bial at sna on odd at 


BENS 





"The dashlight on the inside of the car was on all the time. 
I told my wife to switch the bright lights off right after we left 
Dixon's Lane. Had not traveled over three hundred feet with the dim 
lights on, She switehed the brights out onto the dimmers and I looked 
down and tucked my overcoat and drawed it over my lap and looked at 
the speedometer to see how fast she was driving and then straightemd 
up in my seat and looked out the windshield and when I looked up I 
seen the car right on us. i could see ten or fifteen feet ahead of 
the car as we traveled from the village up to the place of the acci- 
dent. The night was so dark and the fog so heavy that whether we had 
bright or dim lights the furthest I could see was ten or fifteen feet 
ahead. I don*t know whether I could see better with the brights or 
the dimmers on. We could see about the same distance with the dimmers. 
They are located in the headlights and a part of them. The car had a 
switch to change the power of the headlights. They were not little 
lights at the side just in front of the windshield. They were in one 
giobe in the front of the car; didn’t see the car that was approaching 
until it was about ten feet in front of us. 

"after the collision I am not able to give any information as 
to where i 1it or where the car stopped. The car I saw approaching 
uS Was part on the pavement. ‘Still it hit our car on the right hand 
side, and the damage to our car is on the right hand side. I have 
seen the car since then.” | 

The witness, Lantern, testified to the position of the ears 
‘after the accident. He testified: “hen we got there, the Dolan 
car was facing northwest at a slight angie. The pavement runs in a 
southwesterly direction and the Dolan car was northwest at what I 
imagine would be a right angle to the pavement. The two front and 
right rear wheels were on the pavement and the left rear wheel off. 
The Essex was on the north side of the pavement facing southeast with 
three wheels, I am positive, off, and I can't say if the right front 











J ad? Ie oo. saw qeo ale 


— peretdgtaréa ‘Sink hen ——— ont oh i — 
J J—— £ sede bere Skobiobaiy. eal, Sug beeod 
ie Resse saet ager 0 mbt gon bivgo x _ EO 
“same ont Re seal oe ot — epalLbe, ast sxe 4 . 
hed. em reuc rahe oat rset 8 20 asd, baa tab * saw sitys 
geet goed? I 28 net re soe Bie, i sada, ont fi 
xo ——— tt Be aatees, Laat Blane | nest ad ve 
— athe somes 2h omne — oes bison — 





ai nots sexotat — ot * — hd 

gaiiionors qe wee J 288 eat _ sboqaada * 
baat tdyte oat * <08 He. ths tt, i 
overt .s * —— Aah. eds 8. 





wheel was off the pavement on the north sick. 

"The two cars were facing each other except that they offset 
ene another a little. The two cars, if they could rum, could be 
driven past om another about a foot or two apart. The Buick would 
have been on the south side of the issex. The two cars were about 
six or eight feet aparte” 

Appelice's car was hit on the right hand side, the right front 
wheel broken off and the radiator pushed back. 

Lucey Rohour, who was riding in the car with appellant testi- 
fied: “The night was very fogey. The fog was in pockets. ‘The first 
pocket was near the County Farm, and then it thinned out a little, 
and just before the wreck, we were in the worst one. irs. Dolan had 
the window open and was watching aSlong the edge of the pavasent to see 
that we didn't get off. Marcella had the window partly Gown on her 
side. 

"I was looking straight ahead and the first thing 1 mew was 
the crash. I did not see any obstacle in frent of me. There was no 
light at all om the Markwell car. Immediately preceding and at the 
time of the collision the lolan car was right in the middle of the 
pavement, and after the collision, when they came to rest, the Dolan 
car was headed almost west with the left hind wheel off, anc the 
Maerkwéli car was all cff on the shoulder or grevel on the right. 

"On the way back we ran into pockets of fog. the fog did not 
entirely lift, but was heavier at some places than others. Couldn't 
see very well with the lights on where the fog had lifted. ‘here we 
could see about ten feete 

"These fog pockets were a short distance apart. The first was 
near ‘ilton and then one near the County Homs. Ye had been in this 
pecket about two minutes before the accident. Warcella slowed dowm 


fed oakod vem 
28 of teva 704 


— ad — J— ote. — 


— 
Of 200 oro. 





— tant 1 eft : 











— toon eat pid x 


— 


20, ee. asiser se 8 


Ste! eee 











see tect she Nat oa 
yest 40 ees ak tosvade yas oon toa, 


— — Pro — 


when she left this. She was going about twenty miles an hour. We 
were still in the second pocket when we had the wreck. 

"We couldn't see ahead of the car with the lights on. With 
the lights off, we could see the road. It looked like a white ribbon. 
The color of the pavement and the shoulder on the side are not the 
same. I could just see the road. 

"The place where the accident happened is about « mile from the 
eity limits of Catlin. Our windshield was not covered with water or 
fog or mist. I did net see any lights ahead of us until the time of 
the accident. I was looking right down the recd and didn’t see a sign 
of a light. I think I could have seen lishts, if there had been any. 
I think I might have dsen abie to see bright lights on an automobile 
coming in my directicn about one hundred yards.” 

This testimony was fully corroborated by Mrs, “illiam Dolan, 
who was riding with her daughter. <ppellant testified: “Ye were on 
our way home in the car that night. The fog was in pockets and was 
very heavy. In the dense pockets we could see just a very few feet 
With the lights on. ‘Where it wasn’t so densc, we eould see six or 
eight feet. After we passed through a heavy pocket on the other side 
of the County Home, the fog lifted and 1 seamed to be able to see 
better, but by the ‘time we got to the Yalentine home the fog grew so 
heavy I couldn't see anything, and the lights on my car seemed to 
throw a glare in my face, and so I turned than off. They were off at 
the time of the collision. 

"The Karkwell car had no lights on at the time of the collision. 
I was driving right dow the middle of the brick pavement. Just a 
second before the crash, I saw this black obstacle looming up in front 
of me. I did not know what it was at that time. As soon as I saw it, 
I did not have time to yell or warn anybody, and I raised my foot to 


-6= 















Mere eee Seen 
aorat⁊ atlaw » ott Bedeet aI — — 
‘sit Pom — ‘eble add * web iwoite cite Ba i 


uO onew @2" :heltsgeed amos: — — wo om i 
- "ew bos seb, ai aba 30% oer $k J 


reser 


= — det — * — — — 


ot Rompe’ a8 OF ae — —* “5 hi nn 
Yo vie ive — “tie ie —— * — — 


Pate 


« — — * 4 ey —— —— a A 





“p éauh — ‘ond * — 








* 


jam on the brakes, but I couldn't say whether I did or not. It ali 
came so quickly. This car has four whee] brakes which are operated 
by a foot lever. I did nothing to disconnect the gear. None of us 
were thrown out of the car. 

"I observed our car with reference to the pavement and could 
see that the left hind wheel of our car was barely off the pavement 
with the cther three wheels on, ‘The Mariavell car was in froat of me 
with their three wheels off of the pavement and it seemed the right 
front wheel was just barely on the pavement. 

"Se went through more than one pooket of fog after we left 
Tilton. There were three fogs, two very dense and the other one 
light. The second one wis heavy, just after we left the County farn, 
and the third one was where the acident cecurred. I think the third 
one began between « quarter and half a mile from the place of the ac- 
cident. 

"I think we were driving between twenty and twenty-five miles 
an hour. i could see with the lights out between cight and ten feet. 
with the lights turnea on, I eculé hardly see at 411. I could see 
lights ahead of me about fifty feet. Just after we left Tilton, we 
passed the last lisht. 

"At the place of the accident the pavement is ten feet. I 
could see the icft hanc and right hand side of the pavement. Ly 
Window was partiy down and 1 looked out oceasionally. I kept my eyes 
more on the center of the pavement. My windshield was dry. The dark 
object I saw in front of me was over to my right. iI eouldn't see 
whether it wes off the pavement. I cannot say whether my car stopped 
immediately. I was stunned. 

"I did have a talk with Mrs. Markweil and she told me how she 
‘Was. if, Markweli did not say anything to me, but he kept wiping his 


-7- 





ie * ones — ane seoumorsti e Pe te 


* — es 


head and moaning and said his right side seemed to hurt him. There 
was blood running down his face. 

"I had a bad laceration on my wrist and 4 scar on my face and 
my body was bruised. I went to a doctor in Catlin and then went home." 

There was no demage done to the left hand side of either car. 
The witness Lanter, described the glass on the pavement after the ace- 
cident, stating: “The glass I mentioned was scattered 211 around. There 
wasn't any accumulation at any particular point. The biggest portion 
was in the center of the pavement ani the north shoulder to the right 
side of the pavement,--some near the Oplan car and some near the Mark= 
well car and same between the two cars.” 

The road at the point of the accident is described as a brick 
pavement ten feet in width, running northeast from the city limits of 
Catlin, level, and in the center of the road as originally laid out, 
with shoulders on the northwest, ten fect in width of gravel and almost 
level with the pavement, having a ditch on the northwest edge of the 
shoulder about eighteen inches deep. On the southeast of the pavement 
the shouléer consists of sravel extending two and one-half or three 
feet and the balance of cinders of a total width of about sixteen feet 
sloping te a ditch eleven inches deep. The place of the accident ms 
six-tenths cf a mile from the east city limits of Catlin. The shoulders 
were slichtly lower than the brick. 4t the place cf the accident the 
road is streight and rums e@lmcst dus southwest te northeast. 

appellee's fourth instruction to the jury, strenuously ob jected 
to by appellant and assigned as error is as follows: "The court in- 
structs you that the statute of this state provides as follows: ‘hen 
upon any public highway in this state, during the period from one hour 
after sunset to sunrise, every motor vehicle shall carry two lighted 
lamps showing white lights, or lights of a yellow or amber tint, 


8 







- SaneT_ tht ta op — ob te #8 a, 


* — * sos, ase 


— 








mrs, ‘edt * — — ee 


exe — Ma Sasets cee. ane Bons Bao r * 






ramet 


— — ——— mes * — * 


— — ad 







—— 





soos, seadzia Spode. AQ. ‘dete Eater » —* 
— —— ett * cual ote — je 
erebivode oxi attasd * — wb — wae 


besnet de vissoumemze et, out of 2 
ek Harog ost 


wisible at least two hundred (200) feet in the direction toward which 
each motor vehicle is proeeeding.” ‘This instruction, in connection 
with appellee's testimony that “the night was so dark and the fog 30 
heavy that whether we had brigat or dim lights, the furthest 1 couid 
see was ten or fifteen fect ahead." demonstrates that the injury was 
purely accidental, or otherwise that appellee was guilty of gon tri bu- 
tory negligence. it cannot be presumed that appellaat, on the night 
in question, could any better see to dvive than appsliee or his driver. 
It is assigned as error that appellee's first instruction, 

which directed a verdict, in no mamer mentioned the subject of due 
eare on the part of appellee's driver, and appellee's second instrue= 
tion, which alse directed a verdiot, did not mention the subject of 


@ue eare on the part of appellees or his driver. ‘This was error. The 
ee er prsser Ss SOUrth 
instruction in this ease was also an error. 


Upon ali the proofs submitted regarding the injury caused to 
the respective cars and their positions, befor and after the accident, 


we are of the opinion that the verdict is against the manifest weignt 
of the evidence. 


agecordingly, the verdict and judgment of the Cireuit Court of 


Vermilion County are reversed and the cause remanded. 


REVERSED AND REiANDED, 


=9~ 


+ is 


— cid <o “pus 7 












et ey vn a a — i ee ae ee J 9 er may 








way ae j { r 
Ta. ‘or ae me i ee ie il aes ut Ae a J vil J i 
hi big wy ie 4 oy aa 7 , J I I iy . r Ais) Ny, : 
ie : RL iO ae) NM ; ta?" rt i at Wo ak ir i if 
i er er Pe 
Meet ie | ie 
; 4 J Ad rey : ‘ 7 7 sp * 
— i 
= y, | Ny ae i } 
Ne se Gal Se 0) 7 9 J —9— 
Pau : ‘i Ve i : 
_ + of 7 sa J a i f 
1 : . 4 * We — 
I io : I - i 7 J 9 
ty a 7 
: J Ws ae 7 
a y : I i J J J 
> ay J my ny in 
1 
a 9 I 
J J ey Wl 7 
: AY a on! vy . F ; 
‘) : a A Fad} * 
4 i oi - l 
z i : : 7, 9— *8 oo 
’ tee i - ; 
: J ays uy i" 
> Ay fl 1 : iy I : i i . 7 on 
: Ni, * on , ah : tity ye 0 
; » 0 : J 
\, a : U ' 7 io 7 — tf i 
; 3— — I i] ut : 7 i 
Ps , : : 1 i ’r | <i 7 
oe a wea pao Po I J 
an a Ee en an ita tp ad ae On ore ' ree 
nn |) eae err a Se s° ij bes |) ae 
, | ; + 1 See i tet | ee Lane Sal un on hak AL 
ive » & ' yl , rn —— Pr iv , f ar, =a) a ay 
— i — 
‘ J a er ao ar J J 
J a A! PA Wt Sth fn fh : , eal iq J 
ot a) es nr ie 9 aD J J o's ‘i — 9— wf i ee J 
Coe i oh. sn 1— ay ee) "FY — a re sy in I Le 
“(a Ray | Es. ee ony: ALAS * ae hoe ee ' i: 
4 —— ine : — aS — — I a : J ae : 7 i ; 7 , 
(ei 7 J vs : a as a oe 7 : : i %«, 
ik } ; a J 9 i J 8 We. ; i, 
i 9 ay 9 ait } Rays : 7 ve I — eae ‘ J J J i we . an + 
a ab} 1 I J ie! oe OD - Cae an 
pote 0 | | | 
* 9— Aa 4 9 9 Dia J a 7 it by Ms i 4 - : i} ; a iv Y, 
Ve i) Tht J J9 tia a on) Wh 3J a +g ; j I 4 — 
7 oa aD iT, . + (Bava : —26 I fas q) TaN ; Due 9 a V toe 
3* J ane Me hey — ih J of 7 a § : Pt, aT. ae nm ie - : co * 
it a rid ie ry ae 7 J ian : nM : ” ine af 9 4J— I J ae 
an a J hy e i : pe J J — ——— J : ae a 9 al . ~ : 7 i ; ey 4 
W y sie J Oe ee yy ‘ea ae \° «aia 
mm * 9* Oy — — i) ea) : ty a * y pee W 
— a nn a Ry de ae 
a’ erage t ont 0 re ‘_ at ee ao 
ane nee bl Bey pu i he ee = sn . 
. aL : io fy rut LA 3 5 rif > : 7 ah 4 aa. J 
— i ae, y a) 4 Vinee iy Migr ya ; oli nes i sf pre i ney) 4) a 
me Oe J 9 Pre ND hak Me i ee he i : : 


1 iy 


i 


VA 


= 
— * 
* 
_ 
: 
= 
= 


> ioe we oa Pp ec an i) Ha hy, ea 9— I * — | | 
: Shit | i ae! os : 2 tis | ‘ ayn AN a 7 (i Phan J 3 ive at ; J 1 ah ” My 
7 : J J oe 7" LaLa | 1), Tar L a J 
— 7 na PR iy i" oe a) i‘ ik ci 7 AR J Ve J a ey i 
Ai c J F J J — ae en 7 ' — ef ; Pay, Ry bay uy cis 
ane! 5 1) \ A Minas Are 
- oy ha ¥ cl —*F J De eats, 1 - 4 ae fe — oe 


‘ HO ~~. Cae 
P 7 oa i — i nf I 
a ae ir ihe) *) ae! h a Dy 4. J cn’ — 
am | } —— ie 9 Wi i fee a) 5 oF, rie Sa aye 5 a 
eee i) ay 5 we eae a J ey he tas hi > Sine 9 J 
9— J F anne may — fh a ‘ hy! — 
dip is hey an? Fh ! ay ie 
: F an AP —* J F a — ae 
Poy, Oe: i vas eee A a i 
_ : a * ne ‘ie 8* i oi : font 7 ai at ia yi eo ' ri VE J 
is tens Arno i Oh : a ae? AWTS , iin J 
Xa! a Nae | tas i eal lige * J F J Bey i 2% J a ap » 
ig | ; 


' 

J ‘ae 
- 
. 





if 


Man 
we 
8 















: Ll © 7 J— 
* oe , a Ai : J 9 a oes, || J 7 mt 9 7) 4 ; i} ne * 7 " 
eo le 7 BTU ie fan Oe a he ted, Sa i J Ly oe Ly ue 4 van i nad me 
ji; J 8 Th As 7 ny yey 7 Me J a t a J J Ie pial al: : 7 res pr ener Tee a 9 ,_ ais rl 
tee (ae 1. 7. eee Oe beet ee ie a ‘tay rn i a en i ion 
—* 4 " ; J woe chat J a i a mei 0 7% 7 avy —* ah And tas i —94 hi A 5 
9 oe J— cu ab baer aft my 7. il ee a ne med ne : rat i i) v Te ti 4 i he 
‘ 9 in Ard, i pat i oe ate met : an oP oe 9 sti rt sae ie a Ta ie 
a is F F 9 rs A, 3 — J I bar J * J PY i, Ne i, wink } a f ai 
if "ay Rae 4 ie an a / ae Biome — diva: if Ht —J aut noe Nth vi ao —3 i 
CR ion ih fh, —J—— eR J ae i J 
J ‘i i ie SM ‘ Cay tis . 9 the at anh —6 me: 
; ' a A J —** an jis y 
(ay eae) || , et ‘a i if a4 a As. ra! A i Ta it , a eng us ny J a i 
x 7 if a oy, mi ; , i ; 9 F Bs yt ie * a 
. i an , 9 rf ye oa ie . a ee 4— he or 
: J rit 


, igh 7 i A arts a o ban 7 
a eo 9 I ey —* “ae ie! ee 


. 
—* 
. 



















ahi ay pt ints) ae me fa wae) uy A avy lr oe 

LA i el ica ye Ns Wie —— 7 

a @ a ae ati, a I ict oe . M Va 4 Mp 5 a ‘ J I J 

4 iim Wey 4a ; ; Ul eT a : f ey A ot a 

ae } J 9 ee a —* — 11 ale Ree 1 no 
iis @ ith ; 

g 1 





ey. 
; ‘“ Hy uf a UT ars i PY 
a v * a pa ’ ante ae v on hy 7 We oe mee iy — ra ea I an 
J Hy ‘7 nt * Rat ne ye * By oe y ' : e J 


i v bag —J ————— 


me bd a — 

















nie eye i 7 ve 7 Va 
J 9— J a) J vy lite 9 eeu i Ri, y Ta i on i it ai a 
j i J A 9 ans 7 x he i Tay) Deku 8 J Tn 
we i 6 ey a ae, Lane i, « oo iy / 
on Boch ae vs U i fang ae —M ey ie Be J 
J 7 ~ a 7 red 4 ef ‘ 
0! To iy eee 
ne A ay : 46 J i] nt 7 i ; wll : Pe 7 wa * 
ey ie i ante J a pei H 
| [— 
a i" uy ple : th 1s 1 I: J J — ie ! 
iy. nh i cs, , eT "ts, 1 7 ah ree | 
"a : iv : Palle 2 y 
a ian en oe 7 - 4 ‘ I 
ma | J roe a. abe, - nh i; ud Pi —_ / P 
I J ie j 7 That a si Vast : I J 
nan J J ay : At 9 oe ig ¢ n 7 i ' ' j 
; MiNi Le as - aly, } ' an : : 
Oe ent A) eae | F ve ' a : : 
0 | Pena J yy 0 y 7 ra 
j y * i : i fl 
iy ihe A —— thet } 7 4 | 7 
a y iva ae r He a iar i Lae ry 
i) oa J 
Nal alle bal Thin wh co i J oh ea 
eA) : : j a0 4 f on : : : : 
was : “i ' » | 7 re | ary on it 7 7 7 lie I 9 7 
io J ), wea J i. : t 
— ik J 9 Aa 78 } i i , 1 iit ai : : 7 I J 
J ry Joo iy ( 1 i ae on ALY : 
ais y, r J AY % 
is : vi aa Sra vy? Bye ‘ - J 9 J 
as , : a 2a5 1 } ce 7 a 
: ee ud i Ne ij) — 1 J J 7 1) : _ t Pa , 
vy Piuewn, © You) $0) i a 7 7 yj ee vFy oat 
J 9 uf a 7 wn i ke 4 i " "Wty : : ‘ : ' J an * iM V J iy) J 1 
1 wos 1 = ae A : + 7 ‘ an we. 
oN y e sy las vy ae 7 ov »b ™ 7 1. ' ary 7 J ay - i 
mn rT : i ys : ais if on : 7 a) 
is —“ can — Bit : * J a J “Wis iT i 7 
i 9 J tit 
x I me yi 1 ” i 7 i 3 a ®, 
9 re AL ' y riz . a i 
7 - J J * J a i 7 
or my ii} en | \ — J — a : I 
3 i. 7 oF a J a a J Ww 7 
zs i 4 y ‘e ron oi 7 : a 
V Ly 7 J a J on ' _ 
\- J * ny : a ap. we Tie —J J I 
wie! | aoe 2 if aw «| a I ye 
ee cae ner voc am 
in . : y i ii ' i: ’ Peay : —0 — in) i ‘ 
ow fuse | a. er 
: af 1 a 4 : ae . oy J v0 7 iy Fs en 
ae X A, Wine i 9* * i Pan i ae ; I ey i 7) aN : J " 7 me A 
Tu his) Sree ile ‘Ora : ca : ih ; en a fie —— J 
J a ae ‘ ay! Py, ‘3 _ 9 J— PA 7 o ty —* J i ai! i hi 7 a - 1 i x : ’ 7 : ‘ vi : 
RL 2 met J ree — 
ah ae } Db ca ND ah 7 To i ; op — x} i, ; ; i Ay 


‘ 
Tate ua = 


J J ve a ag ate ae We Sl = ny “a 
7 






la . aaa J ne Mf 9 * ae ae 

— af 1*X a : hel " ity 
i 9 ts an — a i 

rif eer; 


WY) i VVVV 
| J 


Ja 
pats: M * J oh PET, 7 (om 











2 
ny oi a i 7 ‘ p 
7 Toe f tie pit — a Le iT iu we mil. 
aren psn 7 J eat GAd . j fer i 1 Uy 
he 3 Baa a con * yen Nd AED A oath 
9 an u c a a, ve —— 9 me ay Ae, 
a 9 J A ——— J hd 
; Se X an 1 rh mL CR 7 ar) wry ue mn hy a + Oe aD 7 
—* hs) i (an arate St, cee.) ei 
ee ; 


SUTRA T 7!) ie J Vi Marae f re ie * ul Pa 6 
‘oe mae Ll, f ‘ie 9 9* at hy th ve ay Ao fi cn 
SS ——— i Sn a a 

J us, a f 1) be " sal i J 9— he q : ‘ Pe tee —— : : A, 
ae man a yt: me — ——— 
- > ; —J a) Ay ee ta 9 Hid: aa 
is) ah Chee 


oat A : 4 7 —6 i, ou J 
— Nii = iRy : Tinh Lb, mi a 











= 
— 


J es : 1 kh aT i Dias aa. 
f Sen A ney | ee ue ul haere al Die are 
on se s he i lixs ; a — hoe ha inet i 
Paine ey —J Mab ye nee 17 Oa i es Z —5 oe : 
SO God. ie Oe) Se 
aml | NP an — tk 7 < 4 Te ar , : 
J aye eh, 4 Vit ATP leet } i, J 


St oe 





— 
= 
a 





7 


‘ ie 


they 
— 
= 
. : 
‘ 
nf “ 
: 
’ 
§ 
Hi 
— 
iJ ⸗ 
7 





— 


ö— — — — —— —— — 





— — — 


— * 
PR ere 
Hr Sek 
* Myer 
—— —